[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken?
In the backyard
I was expecting a response like this… I meant what part of the leg… I assume the top of the leg not near the knee. I just want to make sure I am keeping track of everything right.
Sorry man, jist kiddin. Couldn’t help myself :-][/quote]
Its all good trib, is that some sort of refrence I should have gotten?
[quote]KO421 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken?
In the backyard
I was expecting a response like this… I meant what part of the leg… I assume the top of the leg not near the knee. I just want to make sure I am keeping track of everything right.
I take it at the widest portion. This would differ slightly depending on where your outside “sweep” is greater on your quads. For people who have no development at all (and thusly no sweep), the place is halfway between the knee and hip. There isn’t much difference between the two on most people.
Thanks X, thats what I figured, my legs measure just under 28" each but they don’t seem that big to me… my BF% is a tad bit high at this point but I doubt I would have put on 40lbs if I worried about it…
[/quote]
I agree and I’m the same way. Mine measure just over 29" but they don’t look that big to me and, because they are narrow near the knee but increase in size right above that point, they don’t look that big in shorts.
I am sure they would drop in size if I dieted down so I really don’t worry about what they measure at this point aside from my own mental record.
Yeah Casey Viator
Height: 5’ 10"
Weight: 240 lbs
Arms: 22"
Chest: 58"
Waist: 32"
Thighs: 29"
Calves: 20,5"
Big guy lol, that was taken off the critical bench site, if anyone wants the link http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.criticalbench.com/images/bodybuilders/Viator5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.criticalbench.com/Casey-Viator.htm&h=500&w=372&sz=50&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=TPsrLycCYZciQM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCasey%2BViator%2527s%2B%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG
[quote]Professor X wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken?
In the backyard
I was expecting a response like this… I meant what part of the leg… I assume the top of the leg not near the knee. I just want to make sure I am keeping track of everything right.
I take it at the widest portion. This would differ slightly depending on where your outside “sweep” is greater on your quads. For people who have no development at all (and thusly no sweep), the place is halfway between the knee and hip. There isn’t much difference between the two on most people.
Thanks X, thats what I figured, my legs measure just under 28" each but they don’t seem that big to me… my BF% is a tad bit high at this point but I doubt I would have put on 40lbs if I worried about it…
I agree and I’m the same way. Mine measure just over 29" but they don’t look that big to me and, because they are narrow near the knee but increase in size right above that point, they don’t look that big in shorts.
I am sure they would drop in size if I dieted down so I really don’t worry about what they measure at this point aside from my own mental record.
[/quote]
Yeah mine are semi-thick where the knee is, but near the top it’s definately all the bulk is there. I definately wanna get mine to 29" by the time I turn 18. I think it’s possible. Of course I wanna squat 500+ by then also.
Height - 5’10 1/2"
Weight - 229lbs
Neck - 18"
Shoulder girth - 54"
Shoulder width - 23"
Chest - 47 1/2"
Waist (contracted) - 34 1/2"
Hips - 39"
Upper thigh - 25 1/2"
Lower thigh (5" above centre of knee) - 22 1/2"
Calf - 17"
Upper arm - 17" (hanging), 18" flexed
Forearm (arm straight, hand clenched) - 14 1/2"
Wrist (hand side of bony prominence) - 7 1/2"
Hand (tip of middle finger to wrist) - 7 3/4"
Elbow - 12 3/4"
Ankle - 10"
Knee - 15"
Surely that’s big. How many people on this site would be bigger at that BF level?
[quote]dl- wrote:
Yeah Casey Viator
Height: 5’ 10"
Weight: 240 lbs
Arms: 22"
Chest: 58"
Waist: 32"
Thighs: 29"
Calves: 20,5"
Big guy lol, that was taken off the critical bench site, if anyone wants the link http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.criticalbench.com/images/bodybuilders/Viator5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.criticalbench.com/Casey-Viator.htm&h=500&w=372&sz=50&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=TPsrLycCYZciQM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCasey%2BViator%2527s%2B%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG [/quote]
I seriously doubt these were accurate measurements. Back int he day , Arthur Jones did some very accurate measurements and only Sergio Oliva hit over 20" in the arm measurement. This included Arnold, BTW.
I remember hearing about Columbo’s 19" arms at app 5’6" and 195 lbs.
Bodybuilders exaggerate measurements like guys exaggerate dick size.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
dl- wrote:
Yeah Casey Viator
Height: 5’ 10"
Weight: 240 lbs
Arms: 22"
Chest: 58"
Waist: 32"
Thighs: 29"
Calves: 20,5"
Big guy lol, that was taken off the critical bench site, if anyone wants the link
I seriously doubt these were accurate measurements. Back int he day , Arthur Jones did some very accurate measurements and only Sergio Oliva hit over 20" in the arm measurement. This included Arnold, BTW.
I remember hearing about Columbo’s 19" arms at app 5’6" and 195 lbs.
Bodybuilders exaggerate measurements like guys exaggerate dick size.[/quote]
I agree with you that those measurements probably aren’t accurate and everyone has read that article if they are into bodybuilding. However, I think some people believe anything if they look at Arnold and think his biceps were only 19". Leroy Colbert was the first bodybuilder credited as getting his arms to 21". Arnold at his peak wasn’t smaller than Colbert.
While none of us were there to measure these guys ourselves, to believe Jones on this would mean you actually believe that there either are no bodybuilders today with arms much over 20" or that it simply can’t be attained.
If you have stood next to some of these competitors you would be more apt to believe some of the measurements quoted. I have big arms, but Idrise Ward El looks like a fucking giant next to me and he isn’t even winning competitions. I think more bodybuilders in those early years with Arnold may have lied about their measurements than guys today. Why do I think that? Because many of the guys today are truly so fucking big that they don’t have to exaggerate anything.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
n3wb wrote:
aslater wrote:
How are people measuring forearms? 16" is absolutely huge on a semi-lean guy. Casey Viator’s forearms didnt measure 16" and are considered some of the best in history. I would say any forearm measured right, over 13.5-14 is well above average…
Yeah man 16" forearms makes you an ape.
I guess I’m an ape. [/quote]
Guess so…
I don’t believe for a second viator had 22" arms, I think Darden posted he had 18 or 19" upper arms and 15" forearms.
[quote]superhero#1 wrote:
I don’t believe for a second viator had 22" arms, I think Darden posted he had 18 or 19" upper arms and 15" forearms. [/quote]
I don’t believe 18" or 22". His arms looked bigger than 18". Coleman claims 23" arms in the off season. I am more likely to believe Coleman. I also know that Viator is much smaller than that.
[quote]wsk wrote:
This guy (lifetime drug free, won Mr Australia) is 3 weeks out here and his measurements (taken by Stuart McRobert to dispel the bull shit inflated measurements given for bodybuilders in the muscle comics) are:
Height - 5’10 1/2"
Weight - 229lbs
Neck - 18"
Shoulder girth - 54"
Shoulder width - 23"
Chest - 47 1/2"
Waist (contracted) - 34 1/2"
Hips - 39"
Upper thigh - 25 1/2"
Lower thigh (5" above centre of knee) - 22 1/2"
Calf - 17"
Upper arm - 17" (hanging), 18" flexed
Forearm (arm straight, hand clenched) - 14 1/2"
Wrist (hand side of bony prominence) - 7 1/2"
Hand (tip of middle finger to wrist) - 7 3/4"
Elbow - 12 3/4"
Ankle - 10"
Knee - 15"
Surely that’s big. How many people on this site would be bigger at that BF level?[/quote]
Is that why he looks so big? Because he has such a low bodyfat. My upper thighs measure bigger than his, but to me his look a lot bigger than mine. Of course my legs do not have that much definition, but my legs aint fat I got the meat on them. How come his looks bigger than mine? That’s what I’m confused about.
It’s the low body fat…that guy must be <7% there.
But wouldnt my legs still look bigger because they are 26 3/4 and his are 25 1/2. I guess it is the low bodyfat that makes his look bigger lol but it just seems a little odd to me. I’m guessing if I shredded the fat off my legs I’d be around 24" legs perhaps?
[quote]dl- wrote:
But wouldnt my legs still look bigger because they are 26 3/4 and his are 25 1/2. I guess it is the low bodyfat that makes his look bigger lol but it just seems a little odd to me. I’m guessing if I shredded the fat off my legs I’d be around 24" legs perhaps?[/quote]
No your legs wouldn’t look bigger, maybe in pants but not when visable… correct, your legs would lose some size, most peoples legs contain more fat in them than people think. Impossible to say the exact measurment though.
CT wrote about this once saying his legs where MUCH bigger when he did olympic lifts but now that they have full devolpment they LOOK much bigger despite being a good deal smaller.
the guy in the picture has legs with a good deal of devolpment
I have to say, no matter what Casey Viator Numbers where, he does look put together right…
All true Doc, but remember Arnold was only about 235 while some competito4rs now are close to 300. I absolutely believe these guys have 20+" arms.
When Jones took the measurements they were taken tight with a non pumped arm. I think Ray Mentzer also had 20" arms or so.
My point is that 5’6" guys at under 200 pounds don’t have 18-20 inch arms. I’m about 5’7" and 200-205 and my arms are 16 3/4"-17". If I got ripped I would probably be 16" at 185. Big, but not near 20"
Guys like Ronnie Coleman and such are huge. I’m sure they are over 20. And you are exactly right about the lies. The old school guys lied, but the current guys now that often go 235 cut at 5’6" to almost 300 at 6’ or a little under have to be over 20.
Just look at old pics of Olympias from the 70s to early eighties. Zane might have been 170 lbs or so when he won. I doubt he had much over 16" arms. Robbie Robinson was one of my favorites and he was maybe 5’8" or so and 200 pounds. His arms were huge, but were probably at 18-19".
I don’t know if you remember Kal Szalack(sp). He had some huge arms but still was probably about 19-20 " at most. Of course he was maybe 235-240 lbs.
Big guy lol, that was taken off the critical bench site, if anyone wants the link
I seriously doubt these were accurate measurements. Back int he day , Arthur Jones did some very accurate measurements and only Sergio Oliva hit over 20" in the arm measurement. This included Arnold, BTW.
I remember hearing about Columbo’s 19" arms at app 5’6" and 195 lbs.
Bodybuilders exaggerate measurements like guys exaggerate dick size.
I agree with you that those measurements probably aren’t accurate and everyone has read that article if they are into bodybuilding. However, I think some people believe anything if they look at Arnold and think his biceps were only 19". Leroy Colbert was the first bodybuilder credited as getting his arms to 21". Arnold at his peak wasn’t smaller than Colbert.
While none of us were there to measure these guys ourselves, to believe Jones on this would mean you actually believe that there either are no bodybuilders today with arms much over 20" or that it simply can’t be attained.
If you have stood next to some of these competitors you would be more apt to believe some of the measurements quoted. I have big arms, but Idrise Ward El looks like a fucking giant next to me and he isn’t even winning competitions. I think more bodybuilders in those early years with Arnold may have lied about their measurements than guys today.
Why do I think that? Because many of the guys today are truly so fucking big that they don’t have to exaggerate anything.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
superhero#1 wrote:
I don’t believe for a second viator had 22" arms, I think Darden posted he had 18 or 19" upper arms and 15" forearms.
I don’t believe 18" or 22". His arms looked bigger than 18". Coleman claims 23" arms in the off season. I am more likely to believe Coleman. I also know that Viator is much smaller than that.[/quote]
Also true. Ronnie goes 300 or so. I saw him at Dinner the last two years at Morton’s during the Arnold weekend. In a suit he’s huge.
[quote]KO421 wrote:
dl- wrote:
But wouldnt my legs still look bigger because they are 26 3/4 and his are 25 1/2. I guess it is the low bodyfat that makes his look bigger lol but it just seems a little odd to me. I’m guessing if I shredded the fat off my legs I’d be around 24" legs perhaps?
No your legs wouldn’t look bigger, maybe in pants but not when visable… correct, your legs would lose some size, most peoples legs contain more fat in them than people think. Impossible to say the exact measurment though.
CT wrote about this once saying his legs where MUCH bigger when he did olympic lifts but now that they have full devolpment they LOOK much bigger despite being a good deal smaller.
the guy in the picture has legs with a good deal of devolpment[/quote]
lol i dont get it, how is that possible? Could someone fill me in on this cause I’m really confused. Does the same thing go for arms also?
[quote]dl- wrote:
KO421 wrote:
dl- wrote:
But wouldnt my legs still look bigger because they are 26 3/4 and his are 25 1/2. I guess it is the low bodyfat that makes his look bigger lol but it just seems a little odd to me. I’m guessing if I shredded the fat off my legs I’d be around 24" legs perhaps?
No your legs wouldn’t look bigger, maybe in pants but not when visable… correct, your legs would lose some size, most peoples legs contain more fat in them than people think. Impossible to say the exact measurment though.
CT wrote about this once saying his legs where MUCH bigger when he did olympic lifts but now that they have full devolpment they LOOK much bigger despite being a good deal smaller.
the guy in the picture has legs with a good deal of devolpment
lol i dont get it, how is that possible? Could someone fill me in on this cause I’m really confused. Does the same thing go for arms also?[/quote]
If all the muscles in your legs have a good deal of devolpment, they will look bigger than if they just look like a couple big tree trunks, remember bodybuilding is all about creating an illusion.
Me I dont care, I just want my legs to be big and strong enough to squat 700lbs
[quote]KO421 wrote:
dl- wrote:
KO421 wrote:
dl- wrote:
But wouldnt my legs still look bigger because they are 26 3/4 and his are 25 1/2. I guess it is the low bodyfat that makes his look bigger lol but it just seems a little odd to me. I’m guessing if I shredded the fat off my legs I’d be around 24" legs perhaps?
No your legs wouldn’t look bigger, maybe in pants but not when visable… correct, your legs would lose some size, most peoples legs contain more fat in them than people think. Impossible to say the exact measurment though.
CT wrote about this once saying his legs where MUCH bigger when he did olympic lifts but now that they have full devolpment they LOOK much bigger despite being a good deal smaller.
the guy in the picture has legs with a good deal of devolpment
lol i dont get it, how is that possible? Could someone fill me in on this cause I’m really confused. Does the same thing go for arms also?
If all the muscles in your legs have a good deal of devolpment, they will look bigger than if they just look like a couple big tree trunks, remember bodybuilding is all about creating an illusion.
Me I dont care, I just want my legs to be big and strong enough to squat 700lbs[/quote]
Yeah but it just seems weird because it’s not like your legs arent well developed from doing big squats and such. Anyways I never really liked how bodybuilding legs look like, kinda gross. But I do appreciate my big legs lol.
I’m guessing the exercises (with squats/front squats being a staple) but the exercises like hack squats, leg extensions and the like give it that big development in the front of the leg that creates this illusion correct?
Can the same apply for arms?
