[quote]cueball wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
If the purpose is to give the standard figure then that would be the largest point but I think should not include the glute-ham tie-in.
If the purpose is to have an idea of progress being made and whether the leg looks good or not, somewhere in midthigh – and as Prof X says, if the largest point is anywhere around here then use that point rather than actual middle – tells a whole lot more than right at the top. A turnip leg looks like shit, no matter that the circumference at the top of the turnip may be large.
If the somewhere-in-the-middle point is actually larger than just under the glute-ham tie-in, then that is a much better situation than when just under the glute-ham tie-in is the largest point.
Oh, and of course if the thighs aren’t lean enough for reasonable vascularity, then any measurement is fat-inflated.
Well, I would agree running the tape up into your crotch ain’t the right way to do it. But I would assume that for most, including the aductors in the measurement would add some girth. On the photo of Ronnie X put up, It doesn’t appear that it would give much extra, since his outer quad sweep is so nice. As opposed to someone like Platz, who had very large inner thighs.
Also, where are you considering “mid thigh” to be? Half way between the crotch and knee, or halfway between
where the femur sits in the hip and the knee?[/quote]
The important things are being a reproducible point – so a person does not deceive himself into either thinking there was progress that there wasn’t, or no progress when there was – and being reflective of, from the bb’ing perspective, how good the leg is getting.
Roughly speaking we are impressed by the middle of the leg being thick, and not so much from the very top of the leg being thick but the thigh rapidly tapering down like a turnip. So if the only thing done is measuring the biggest point, when that is the very top this really isn’t telling the story either to oneself or others. For example let’s say one person’s legs are 27" just under the glute-ham tie-in and also 27" somewhere around the middle of the thigh.
Another’s are 27.5" just under the glute-ham tie-in, but 22" in the middle of the thigh.
Whose legs are bigger and better? The first guy’s. Technically is the second guy entitled to claim a bigger number? Yes, but my suggestion is he ought to consider tracking what is happening at some point near the middle.
For me the hamstrings peak is a good point as it is reproducible and at about the middle. Looking at the top of the thigh, I can’t really pick such a reproducible point.
As Prof X pointed out, someone with better development can have a largest part of sweep that is somewhere around the middle but not necessarily at the literal middle, and this point is obvious from viewing from the top (or front.) In that case I would mean that point.
