I loaded up 1000 lbs once just to see if I could do it and managed 6 reps, full ROM (down to the stopper).
I don’t go heavy on leg press at all though, I load up a massive 2 plates per side and do 10 sets of 10 with 10 seconds rest as a finisher.
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.
[quote]caveman101 wrote:
over…9000![/quote]
I used to leg press 2,000 lbs. Then I took an arrow to the knee…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure height/weight are heavily involved
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure height/weight are heavily involved[/quote]
ok, im 6’ 4’', 225lbs, i didnt want to use me as im not exactly average, but i was thinking more average bodybuilder height like 5 10 or so? not fat either, not ripped, but not obese.
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
IMO, measurements are overrated.
Obviously if you have 20 inch quads, that’s very, very small, but it’s not all about the measurement, but rather about the shape that makes quads/legs impressive IMO.
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
IMO, measurements are overrated.
Obviously if you have 20 inch quads, that’s very, very small, but it’s not all about the measurement, but rather about the shape that makes quads/legs impressive IMO.[/quote]
good point, my legs look bigger now at 25’’ than they did when i was much fatter and they were 28’’ or so
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
IMO, measurements are overrated.
Obviously if you have 20 inch quads, that’s very, very small, but it’s not all about the measurement, but rather about the shape that makes quads/legs impressive IMO.[/quote]
good point, my legs look bigger now at 25’’ than they did when i was much fatter and they were 28’’ or so
[/quote]
Well, in that case they look better because they’re leaner. But in some instances, you can have two quads/legs that measure the same, but one is much more impressive because of the shape/sweep whereas the other doesn’t have that. This can be genetic, but there are quad exercises/techniques that can enhance these qualities that make quads look more complete.
I’m 5’8" 200ish and mine are about 26". I’ve got pics in my logs, if you want to use that to get a feel for what that looks like. I don’t consider my legs to be big or anything, but there’s a point of reference.
I’m not a huge fan of measurements as a deciding factor though. I think that if a muscle is big, it will look it. I’m shooting for a look to my legs rather than a measurement. Maybe I’ll get it in another year or so of hard work LOL
[quote]overstand wrote:
I loaded up 1000 lbs once just to see if I could do it and managed 6 reps, full ROM (down to the stopper).
I don’t go heavy on leg press at all though, I load up a massive 2 plates per side and do 10 sets of 10 with 10 seconds rest as a finisher.[/quote]
I can’t even get the sled close to full depth without at least 8pps…
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
Generally, the answer is about 27" around or more. You are likely very short if legs much smaller than that really look extremely developed.
Most of the 60’s era bodybuilders you see had measurements closer to 27"…and that would be considered small today.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
Generally, the answer is about 27" around or more. You are likely very short if legs much smaller than that really look extremely developed.
Most of the 60’s era bodybuilders you see had measurements closer to 27"…and that would be considered small today.[/quote]
While I do believe that 27 is a good general number, I think that measurements in general don’t tell the whole story.
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
Generally, the answer is about 27" around or more. You are likely very short if legs much smaller than that really look extremely developed.
Most of the 60’s era bodybuilders you see had measurements closer to 27"…and that would be considered small today.[/quote]
While I do believe that 27 is a good general number, I think that measurements in general don’t tell the whole story.[/quote]
You can say that about anything. It won’t change the fact that outside of rare freak cases, most people with less than 15" arms aren’t going to look “huge”. That statement isn’t false because you go out and find one Pygmy who looks like Arnold at 3’8".
Chances are, the guy with quads under 26" isn’t going to look that built unless comparing your legs to someone completely sedentary.
In bodybuilding, to look that filled out, you have to be carrying enough meat on them…and in general, most won’t see that under 27" relatively lean.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bignate wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tech-Junkie wrote:
Cool! Another thraed where everybody can lie about their lifting numbers. I leg press 2000 pounds too. Anybody who can’t leg press 2000 pounds clearly has some sort of physical disability.[/quote]
You know what? If your legs LOOK like it, that is all that matters on a bodybuilding forum.
Only cry if these numbers are coming from guys with 25" quads.[/quote]
What is considered big quads typically? DOnt think ive ever seen an answer for this one, theres the 18’’ barrier for arms and calves, but whats the standardish size for ‘worked out’ legs?[/quote]
Generally, the answer is about 27" around or more. You are likely very short if legs much smaller than that really look extremely developed.
Most of the 60’s era bodybuilders you see had measurements closer to 27"…and that would be considered small today.[/quote]
While I do believe that 27 is a good general number, I think that measurements in general don’t tell the whole story.[/quote]
You can say that about anything. It won’t change the fact that outside of rare freak cases, most people with less than 15" arms aren’t going to look “huge”. That statement isn’t false because you go out and find one Pygmy who looks like Arnold at 3’8".
Chances are, the guy with quads under 26" isn’t going to look that built unless comparing your legs to someone completely sedentary.
In bodybuilding, to look that filled out, you have to be carrying enough meat on them…and in general, most won’t see that under 27" relatively lean.[/quote]
Well, I guess I speak from experience. I’ve never had huge leg measurements, but I like to think that my legs are pretty developed at this point in time.
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
Well, I guess I speak from experience. I’ve never had huge leg measurements, but I like to think that my legs are pretty developed at this point in time.[/quote]
I get it now…this is about your own validation. If you consider yourself at the peak of what most aspire to in bodybuilding (speaking of those with goals of looking like competitors or competing), then I guess your legs are big enough.
No one was degrading you for mentioning a number.
I am sure your legs look more developed than most.
One thing I do notice is you haven’t mentioned what your legs measure currently.
Actually, no. No validation needed, was simply giving an example.
Also, never felt degraded or anything, again just an example.
I also don’t consider myself near the peak of bodybuilding, dunno where that came up.
What do your legs measure around and how tall are you?
Idk I don’t measure. Maybe 27.5-28