Arm Size of T-Nation Readers

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
341

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
Okay,not everyone is playing fair and listing whether they have read that article (Very interesting by the way,cheers prof X,it confirmed a lot of suspicions I have had with regards to growth AND measurement) and followed the protocol.
yeesh,what a low to my ego.
You mean putting a finger under the tape is not on?
:wink:
Just kidding.
Ok,here’s my stats,(following the strict poliquin protocol)-
31 y/o
102kg/224lbs.
6’2"
14.2" cold
16.0" flexed

Also,is it worth listing the distance or how many fingers you can get in between your biceps and elbow joint? I read this once as a method of determining ggod genetic potential or not,and it ties in with that article.
I can get two fingers in there easily.
Given all this,and the fact that I do hardly any direct bicep work,is this good for my height/weight,or do I need to man the fuck up?

I wouldn’t say that you could determine your genetic potential by doing a finger test of your bicep insertion points.

People with both extremes have had the greatest arms ever. Higher insertion points give an awesome peak and lower give a very full powerful look.

I’ll give you examples of peoples arms that look awesome from all extremes and look them up and tell me about their genetic potential ;).

Albert Beckles-High Insertion Points

Arnold Schwarzenegger-Neither Very High, Nor Very Low

Kevin Levrone-Low Insertion Points

They all have arms I would be extremely proud to wear.[/quote]

You still haven’t proved anything one way or the other,what you have said is higher insertion points ‘give an awesome peak’ and lower gives a ‘full powerful look’ neither correlates with the method stated here of measuring the diameter of biceps,without including this info.

You have basically ststed how one or the other can give a better APPEARANCE.I feel arm length contributes a lot at least.But you surely cannot argue that a higher insertion makes it EASIER to add muscle,and a lower insertion allows the POTENTIAL for MORE growth?
Other genetic factors come into it too,such as muscle fibre makeup/dominance.

342

If someone wants to greatly increase their arm size, is a dedicated arms workout a must?

Or do you think something like 4-6 sets of tricep ext. and curls is just as good at the end of UPPER days 2x per week.?

343

5’10
16.25" cold

344

[quote]Ace Rimmer wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
Okay,not everyone is playing fair and listing whether they have read that article (Very interesting by the way,cheers prof X,it confirmed a lot of suspicions I have had with regards to growth AND measurement) and followed the protocol.
yeesh,what a low to my ego.
You mean putting a finger under the tape is not on?
:wink:
Just kidding.
Ok,here’s my stats,(following the strict poliquin protocol)-
31 y/o
102kg/224lbs.
6’2"
14.2" cold
16.0" flexed

Also,is it worth listing the distance or how many fingers you can get in between your biceps and elbow joint? I read this once as a method of determining ggod genetic potential or not,and it ties in with that article.

I can get two fingers in there easily.
Given all this,and the fact that I do hardly any direct bicep work,is this good for my height/weight,or do I need to man the fuck up?

I wouldn’t say that you could determine your genetic potential by doing a finger test of your bicep insertion points.

People with both extremes have had the greatest arms ever. Higher insertion points give an awesome peak and lower give a very full powerful look.

I’ll give you examples of peoples arms that look awesome from all extremes and look them up and tell me about their genetic potential ;).

Albert Beckles-High Insertion Points

Arnold Schwarzenegger-Neither Very High, Nor Very Low

Kevin Levrone-Low Insertion Points

They all have arms I would be extremely proud to wear.

You still haven’t proved anything one way or the other,what you have said is higher insertion points ‘give an awesome peak’ and lower gives a ‘full powerful look’ neither correlates with the method stated here of measuring the diameter of biceps,without including this info.

You have basically ststed how one or the other can give a better APPEARANCE.I feel arm length contributes a lot at least.But you surely cannot argue that a higher insertion makes it EASIER to add muscle,and a lower insertion allows the POTENTIAL for MORE growth?
Other genetic factors come into it too,such as muscle fibre makeup/dominance.[/quote]

What is there to prove that has not been proven already.

I was giving examples of 3 guys, one who was a 7 time Mr. Olympia, the other a Mr. Olympia runner up for numerous occassions and the other a Mr. Olympia contender.

These guys have the best genetic potential for bodybuilding and there insertion points are at all different extremes. A finger test is not a test worthy of dictating what someones genetic potential is.

You asked if you have good potential and stated that you don’t do direct arm work…your arms are small, cause I consider my arms to be not that large and I have about 2.5 inches on you.

I think your trying to study way too far into this subject, when your accomplishments dictate you shouldn’t be doing so. I think it would benefit you more to stop reading this info and to spend more time eating and lifting big and your arms will grow.

345

[quote]dankid wrote:
If someone wants to greatly increase their arm size, is a dedicated arms workout a must?

Or do you think something like 4-6 sets of tricep ext. and curls is just as good at the end of UPPER days 2x per week.?[/quote]

From personal experiance my arms have grown much more when I dedicated days just to workout arms. 3-4 exercises, 3-4 sets, has been whats worked best.

346

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
Okay,not everyone is playing fair and listing whether they have read that article (Very interesting by the way,cheers prof X,it confirmed a lot of suspicions I have had with regards to growth AND measurement) and followed the protocol.
yeesh,what a low to my ego.
You mean putting a finger under the tape is not on?
:wink:
Just kidding.
Ok,here’s my stats,(following the strict poliquin protocol)-
31 y/o
102kg/224lbs.
6’2"
14.2" cold
16.0" flexed

Also,is it worth listing the distance or how many fingers you can get in between your biceps and elbow joint? I read this once as a method of determining ggod genetic potential or not,and it ties in with that article.

I can get two fingers in there easily.
Given all this,and the fact that I do hardly any direct bicep work,is this good for my height/weight,or do I need to man the fuck up?

I wouldn’t say that you could determine your genetic potential by doing a finger test of your bicep insertion points.

People with both extremes have had the greatest arms ever. Higher insertion points give an awesome peak and lower give a very full powerful look.

I’ll give you examples of peoples arms that look awesome from all extremes and look them up and tell me about their genetic potential ;).

Albert Beckles-High Insertion Points

Arnold Schwarzenegger-Neither Very High, Nor Very Low

Kevin Levrone-Low Insertion Points

They all have arms I would be extremely proud to wear.

You still haven’t proved anything one way or the other,what you have said is higher insertion points ‘give an awesome peak’ and lower gives a ‘full powerful look’ neither correlates with the method stated here of measuring the diameter of biceps,without including this info.

You have basically ststed how one or the other can give a better APPEARANCE.I feel arm length contributes a lot at least.But you surely cannot argue that a higher insertion makes it EASIER to add muscle,and a lower insertion allows the POTENTIAL for MORE growth?
Other genetic factors come into it too,such as muscle fibre makeup/dominance.

What is there to prove that has not been proven already.

I was giving examples of 3 guys, one who was a 7 time Mr. Olympia, the other a Mr. Olympia runner up for numerous occassions and the other a Mr. Olympia contender.

These guys have the best genetic potential for bodybuilding and there insertion points are at all different extremes. A finger test is not a test worthy of dictating what someones genetic potential is.

You asked if you have good potential and stated that you don’t do direct arm work…your arms are small, cause I consider my arms to be not that large and I have about 2.5 inches on you.

I think your trying to study way too far into this subject, when your accomplishments dictate you shouldn’t be doing so. I think it would benefit you more to stop reading this info and to spend more time eating and lifting big and your arms will grow.[/quote]

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.

347

height 178cm (don’t know much that is in ft"in, probably like 5"8)
weight 185pounds
bicep 15" (fucking small, I won’t settle for anything under 20 and when I have 20" inch arms I’m gonna push for 21)

348

5’10",17 inch arms at 104 kg.

349

start curling c’mon c’mon!!

350

[quote]Ace Rimmer wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
Okay,not everyone is playing fair and listing whether they have read that article (Very interesting by the way,cheers prof X,it confirmed a lot of suspicions I have had with regards to growth AND measurement) and followed the protocol.
yeesh,what a low to my ego.
You mean putting a finger under the tape is not on?
:wink:
Just kidding.
Ok,here’s my stats,(following the strict poliquin protocol)-
31 y/o
102kg/224lbs.
6’2"
14.2" cold
16.0" flexed

Also,is it worth listing the distance or how many fingers you can get in between your biceps and elbow joint? I read this once as a method of determining ggod genetic potential or not,and it ties in with that article.

I can get two fingers in there easily.
Given all this,and the fact that I do hardly any direct bicep work,is this good for my height/weight,or do I need to man the fuck up?

I wouldn’t say that you could determine your genetic potential by doing a finger test of your bicep insertion points.

People with both extremes have had the greatest arms ever. Higher insertion points give an awesome peak and lower give a very full powerful look.

I’ll give you examples of peoples arms that look awesome from all extremes and look them up and tell me about their genetic potential ;).

Albert Beckles-High Insertion Points

Arnold Schwarzenegger-Neither Very High, Nor Very Low

Kevin Levrone-Low Insertion Points

They all have arms I would be extremely proud to wear.

You still haven’t proved anything one way or the other,what you have said is higher insertion points ‘give an awesome peak’ and lower gives a ‘full powerful look’ neither correlates with the method stated here of measuring the diameter of biceps,without including this info.

You have basically ststed how one or the other can give a better APPEARANCE.I feel arm length contributes a lot at least.But you surely cannot argue that a higher insertion makes it EASIER to add muscle,and a lower insertion allows the POTENTIAL for MORE growth?
Other genetic factors come into it too,such as muscle fibre makeup/dominance.

What is there to prove that has not been proven already.

I was giving examples of 3 guys, one who was a 7 time Mr. Olympia, the other a Mr. Olympia runner up for numerous occassions and the other a Mr. Olympia contender.

These guys have the best genetic potential for bodybuilding and there insertion points are at all different extremes. A finger test is not a test worthy of dictating what someones genetic potential is.

You asked if you have good potential and stated that you don’t do direct arm work…your arms are small, cause I consider my arms to be not that large and I have about 2.5 inches on you.

I think your trying to study way too far into this subject, when your accomplishments dictate you shouldn’t be doing so. I think it would benefit you more to stop reading this info and to spend more time eating and lifting big and your arms will grow.

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.[/quote]

Come on now, all bullsh*t aside, you DON’T want big arms? I don’t know anybody, I mean anybody that dosen’t want big arms. Are you a male (MAN). I think you are more intersted in winning a argument than actually training. Sorry if that sounds rude, but this is a BODYBUILDING forum.

351

[quote]bwhitwell wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
Okay,not everyone is playing fair and listing whether they have read that article (Very interesting by the way,cheers prof X,it confirmed a lot of suspicions I have had with regards to growth AND measurement) and followed the protocol.
yeesh,what a low to my ego.
You mean putting a finger under the tape is not on?
:wink:
Just kidding.
Ok,here’s my stats,(following the strict Poliquin protocol)-
31 y/o
102kg/224lbs.
6’2"
14.2" cold
16.0" flexed

Also,is it worth listing the distance or how many fingers you can get in between your biceps and elbow joint? I read this once as a method of determining ggod genetic potential or not,and it ties in with that article.

I can get two fingers in there easily.
Given all this,and the fact that I do hardly any direct bicep work,is this good for my height/weight,or do I need to man the fuck up?

I wouldn’t say that you could determine your genetic potential by doing a finger test of your bicep insertion points.

People with both extremes have had the greatest arms ever. Higher insertion points give an awesome peak and lower give a very full powerful look.

I’ll give you examples of peoples arms that look awesome from all extremes and look them up and tell me about their genetic potential ;).

Albert Beckles-High Insertion Points

Arnold Schwarzenegger-Neither Very High, Nor Very Low

Kevin Levrone-Low Insertion Points

They all have arms I would be extremely proud to wear.

You still haven’t proved anything one way or the other,what you have said is higher insertion points ‘give an awesome peak’ and lower gives a ‘full powerful look’ neither correlates with the method stated here of measuring the diameter of biceps,without including this info.

You have basically ststed how one or the other can give a better APPEARANCE.I feel arm length contributes a lot at least.But you surely cannot argue that a higher insertion makes it EASIER to add muscle,and a lower insertion allows the POTENTIAL for MORE growth?
Other genetic factors come into it too,such as muscle fibre makeup/dominance.

What is there to prove that has not been proven already.

I was giving examples of 3 guys, one who was a 7 time Mr. Olympia, the other a Mr. Olympia runner up for numerous occassions and the other a Mr. Olympia contender.

These guys have the best genetic potential for bodybuilding and there insertion points are at all different extremes. A finger test is not a test worthy of dictating what someones genetic potential is.

You asked if you have good potential and stated that you don’t do direct arm work…your arms are small, cause I consider my arms to be not that large and I have about 2.5 inches on you.

I think your trying to study way too far into this subject, when your accomplishments dictate you shouldn’t be doing so. I think it would benefit you more to stop reading this info and to spend more time eating and lifting big and your arms will grow.

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.

Come on now, all bullsh*t aside, you DON’T want big arms? I don’t know anybody, I mean anybody that dosen’t want big arms. Are you a male (MAN). I think you are more intersted in winning a argument than actually training. Sorry if that sounds rude, but this is a BODYBUILDING forum.[/quote]

The guy seems to be doing this a lot on here lately and than when his opinion(s) feel threatened he tends to go on a shit talking rampage. This is not how any 31 year old should act.

Also if he didn’t want big arms why would he post his stats in this thread and then ask about his potential. Dumb fucker.

352

5’6.5"
205 lbs
17" cold flexed

353

5’8"
188 lbs
17.25"

354

[quote]Ace Rimmer wrote:

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.[/quote]

I think he means that like CT’s clients, his clients may get scared of him if he becomes too big/muscular. He can make more money being medium sized, and that includes his arms. Otherwise if he did direct arm work, he might carry 20"+ arms that negatively affects his income and other negative consequences.

355

[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.

I think he means that like CT’s clients, his clients may get scared of him if he becomes too big/muscular. He can make more money being medium sized, and that includes his arms. Otherwise if he did direct arm work, he might carry 20"+ arms that negatively affects his income and other negative consequences.
[/quote]

Which I call bull shit. I have medium sized arms 18.5-19" arms, and people come up to me all the time in my gym to ask questions even though I am not even a PT or SC. If I get interrupted as many times as I do working as if I was working, I’d be big baller in the iron jungle.

356

[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.

I think he means that like CT’s clients, his clients may get scared of him if he becomes too big/muscular. He can make more money being medium sized, and that includes his arms. Otherwise if he did direct arm work, he might carry 20"+ arms that negatively affects his income and other negative consequences.
[/quote]

This is bullshit. For one CT is way larger than most of the people on the site. Second, any guy in here with relatively lean muscles with arms over 18" will tell you how often they get approached by people asking them about training. I also want to see the person who can suddenly carry 20" biceps without working damned hard for it for several years.

Mind you, I work in a profession where big muscles are rarely seen and this doesn’t affect me…and I have to inject people on a daily basis.

357

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.

I think he means that like CT’s clients, his clients may get scared of him if he becomes too big/muscular. He can make more money being medium sized, and that includes his arms. Otherwise if he did direct arm work, he might carry 20"+ arms that negatively affects his income and other negative consequences.

Which I call bull shit. I have medium sized arms 18.5-19" arms, and people come up to me all the time in my gym to ask questions even though I am not even a PT or SC. If I get interrupted as many times as I do working as if I was working, I’d be big baller in the iron jungle.[/quote]

You, like me are from the USA. He is from England, the client base might be different.

358

[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.

I think he means that like CT’s clients, his clients may get scared of him if he becomes too big/muscular. He can make more money being medium sized, and that includes his arms. Otherwise if he did direct arm work, he might carry 20"+ arms that negatively affects his income and other negative consequences.

Which I call bull shit. I have medium sized arms 18.5-19" arms, and people come up to me all the time in my gym to ask questions even though I am not even a PT or SC. If I get interrupted as many times as I do working as if I was working, I’d be big baller in the iron jungle.

You, like me are from the USA. He is from England, the client base might be different.
[/quote]

OR he could be talking out of his ass…one of the two.

359

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:

I’m not interested in getting big biceps,I was interested from a point of view of answering clients questions.

I think he means that like CT’s clients, his clients may get scared of him if he becomes too big/muscular. He can make more money being medium sized, and that includes his arms. Otherwise if he did direct arm work, he might carry 20"+ arms that negatively affects his income and other negative consequences.

Which I call bull shit. I have medium sized arms 18.5-19" arms, and people come up to me all the time in my gym to ask questions even though I am not even a PT or SC. If I get interrupted as many times as I do working as if I was working, I’d be big baller in the iron jungle.[/quote]

dude 18.5-19’ arms ain’t medium sized. I say they are pretty nice.

360

6’3
218lbs
17" Even, two hours after training.