Is there suppose to be some sort of leg to arm ratio?
Should the legs be twice the size of the arm? or 75% larger?
I understand body parts grow differently at different paces. But I also read alot of “Your legs are too small compared to your upper body”
I have 16.5 inch arm, and 25 inch leg. What would be even?
Sure…I’m 17" and 26" I seem to be “normal”
A better question it seems to me would be what is you calf/thigh & Upper arm to forearm measurements? This seems to be comparing apples to apples a opposed to leg to arm ratios. I may be wrong tho…
I’ve always read that neck, upper arms and calves should generally measure the same in a symmetrical physique.
Thigh size of about half again the upper arm size is proportional to classical concepts of the ideal male physique (the so-called Grecian Ideal.)
On the thigh to calf ratio, pretty much just flip the upper arm to thigh ratio and there you have it, on the principle of calf size being preferably close to the upper arm size. Though it’s not unusual for the calves to be somewhat below the upper arms.
On forearm to upper arm ratio, again the classical value is about 80%.
All this is not to say things such as for given upper arm size, it would be undesirable for the forearms to exceed the above ratio, or anything like that. But only that the above ratios are aesthetic to probably most.
Also, all this is only relevant to reasonably lean condition.
ideal arm to leg ratio? 1:1 You should have one arm for every leg.
upper arm, neck and calf should be the same size…
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Thigh size of about half again the upper arm size is proportional to classical concepts of the ideal male physique (the so-called Grecian Ideal.)
[/quote]
I think you meant that the other way around.
[quote]Bloobird wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Thigh size of about half again the upper arm size is proportional to classical concepts of the ideal male physique (the so-called Grecian Ideal.)
I think you meant that the other way around.[/quote]
No he didn’t, you just didn’t understand him 
Thigh size = half again upper arm size, = 1.5x upper arm
[quote]Muscles297 wrote:
ideal arm to leg ratio? 1:1 You should have one arm for every leg.[/quote]
LOL!
Rep +1
13" arms and 24" legs, 1:2, upper arm: leg is about right
[quote]Oroborus wrote:
13" arms and 24" legs, 1:2, upper arm: leg is about right[/quote]
This is the finniest thing i have ever seen!
Do you honestly believe you have perfect aesthetic proportions?
27" thighs and 16" arms… I don’t know, getting bigger legs was always easy for me, getting them bigger was never really a priority, I just wanted to become stronger in the squat and the deadlift, size just came along with it I guess.
[quote] Brook wrote:
Oroborus wrote:
13" arms and 24" legs, 1:2, upper arm: leg is about right
This is the finniest thing i have ever seen!
Do you honestly believe you have perfect aesthetic proportions?[/quote]
If he’s happy with it, WTF do you care?
Isn’t the perfect male physique originally taken from greek sculptures.
[quote]dirtebird wrote:
Brook wrote:
Oroborus wrote:
13" arms and 24" legs, 1:2, upper arm: leg is about right
This is the finniest thing i have ever seen!
Do you honestly believe you have perfect aesthetic proportions?
If he’s happy with it, WTF do you care? [/quote]
Did i say i ‘cared’, lover boy?
The point is simple:
On this, a Bodybuilding forum, a question was put to him about the aesthetics of Bodybuilding balance and proportion, and the poster blatantly suggested that as his ratio is ‘x’ then that must be the perfect ratio for the sports athletes.
Now, i don’t know about you - but in my personal opinion, the poster doesn’t look much like he has a classic bodybuilding physique. Not yet at least.
And i personally won’t be striving to achieve a ratio that is based on someone with (in bodybuilding terms) a lesser developed physique.
If this was the “I’m skinny-fat and happy” forum,you would be absolutely right, and he SHOULD be proud of his body and happy to show it off (as every human is beautiful).
Buut, seeing as it most certainly is not that forum, then you can go fuck yourself.
Hows that?
[quote]The1andOnly wrote:
Isn’t the perfect male physique originally taken from greek sculptures.[/quote]
Yes, the articles, web pages, calculators etc (if there are any other things) referring to the Grecian Ideal are based on classical sculptures. Not always actually Greek sculptures: the statue of David is by Michelangelo, and there may be other exceptions.
Undoubtedly if high level competitive natural bb’ers, and let’s say ones that generally were thought to be more aesthetic, were measured the ratios would be somewhat different.
Not really so drastically though.
The thing about it being ratios is that while the modern bodybuilder may be larger in each measurement, that doesn’t mean the proportions have to be greatly different.
That said, though, the modern bb’ing ideal of leg size is somewhat larger relative to upper body size than the “Grecian Ideal” proportion.
One way that this has been put is that the classical ideal, and what bb’ing a while back was looking for, was the V-frame shape whereas now the bb’ing ideal is the X-frame.
However, for someone who would ask about these proportions rather than simply aiming to improve as much as possible everywhere that is possible, I think they would be unlikely to be unhappy with obtaining proportions similar to the Greek Ideal provided that the sizes involved are all decent.
(Obviously, there’s no use in everything being proportional, but the arms being 12", the legs 18", etc.)
Also, with regard to being from classical art rather than from measurement of bb’ers:
There are also certainly bodybuilders of similar proportion. Steve Reeves was pretty much dead on with regard to how chest, arms, legs, and neck interrelated; but had much smaller waist and hips than called for by that formula.
Which made him a better bodybuilder than had he been “proportional” (by that standard) in those regards.
I have roughly 28" thighs and 19" arms, many of my critical bodybuilding acquaintances usually compliment my proportions. thats about a 1:1.47 ratio. now, lets talk pros usually 22" arms, 30" thighs while looking pretty proportioned which equals about 1:1.36 ratio, so, taking myself as a test subject and average pros into account- yeah 1:1.50 0r 75% seems about right.
BTW im no math major, just a honest man with a calculator-haha
[quote] Brook wrote:
dirtebird wrote:
Brook wrote:
Oroborus wrote:
13" arms and 24" legs, 1:2, upper arm: leg is about right
This is the finniest thing i have ever seen!
Do you honestly believe you have perfect aesthetic proportions?
If he’s happy with it, WTF do you care?
Did i say i ‘cared’, lover boy?
The point is simple:
On this, a Bodybuilding forum, a question was put to him about the aesthetics of Bodybuilding balance and proportion, and the poster blatantly suggested that as his ratio is ‘x’ then that must be the perfect ratio for the sports athletes.
Now, i don’t know about you - but in my personal opinion, the poster doesn’t look much like he has a classic bodybuilding physique. Not yet at least.
And i personally won’t be striving to achieve a ratio that is based on someone with (in bodybuilding terms) a lesser developed physique.
If this was the “I’m skinny-fat and happy” forum,you would be absolutely right, and he SHOULD be proud of his body and happy to show it off (as every human is beautiful).
Buut, seeing as it most certainly is not that forum, then you can go fuck yourself.
Hows that?
;)[/quote]
TBH I wouldn’t have bothered calling you out, except that in what little time I spend in the Bodybuilding forum, it seems like I’ve seen you acting like an ass towards someone. And if you want to get technical, the guy never said he thought he was perfect.
With that said, my approach was all wrong. It was just the first thing that came to my mind. I saw a drug enhanced guy giving a regular guy a hard time, and it looked like bullying the was it was written. Dude doesn’t need me to defend him though, he’s happy with himself.
Ahh… we get to the real shit there - drug enhanced.
You are totally right of course, the fact i eat well, train hard and consistently, don’t drink, smoke or party, that i live a disciplined lifestyle purely for bodybuilding, has fuck all to do with my results. it is the ‘drugs’. I am truly busted!
I am not even going there with an ignorant fool like yourself. You think what you like.
Good god.
[quote]HypertroPHd wrote:
I have roughly 28" thighs and 19" arms, many of my critical bodybuilding acquaintances usually compliment my proportions. thats about a 1:1.47 ratio. now, lets talk pros usually 22" arms, 30" thighs while looking pretty proportioned which equals about 1:1.36 ratio, so, taking myself as a test subject and average pros into account- yeah 1:1.50 0r 75% seems about right.
BTW im no math major, just a honest man with a calculator-haha
[/quote]
Yeah - you have a great physique and you look to be well proportioned.
Young too… you do well mate;)