[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tex Ag wrote:
Okay, I see. You are equating 15 inch arms with a non-training individual. I think your estimation is high, probably by several inches.
In my case, as I have stated elsewhere, I started with 7 inch arms after some early training (I got stronger, I do not know if any bigger). I did a plenty of manual labor growing up and I played sports that were leg, not arm dependent. Just a small kid from a family of small (short, small framed) people.
I started with wrists and elbows that hurt during arm exercises (for years, actually still hurt often enough) and added in nerve damage (neck/back) after lifting two years. Arms were not my strong point. Constant pain outside the gym is not a whole lot of motivation.
But now years later I do have 15+ inch arms. I do not think they are big and I do not give advice on how to get bigger arms. But while I understand the point you are trying to make, I have grown tired of this dismissive measurement (15") as if that could in no way represent achievement of any kind. I know my experience may be an exception (though not exceptional) I have to think there is a decent sized population here starting with much smaller arms than you assume.
Not sure what to suggest as an alternative, but since you have expressed concern for the newbies here–perhaps you can take this into consideration.
I grew up in a mostly black neighborhood in Houston, Tx. I doubt I have ever seen anyone over the age of 10 who had 7" arms unless they were anorexic.
I understand we all have different backgrounds, but hopefully you aren’t suggesting that 7" arms are normal for grown men who are just starting training. I would go as far as to say that is pretty abnormal for anyone who is active beforehand.
Yes, I do think most grown MEN should have arms somewhere close to at least 14" (maybe 12-13" if you avoided even playing basketball in the afternoons) before serious training unless they have extremely weak genetics and/or were extremely inactive most of their lives.
By active, I would guess I mean being involved in sports as a kid, made to carry out the trash, wash the car, mow the yard and various other activities that would at least have most guys looking like “men” even if they never lifted formally.
If that is a DRASTIC overestimation, then I can only imagine I grew up in a very strange community.[/quote]
I am not suggesting that normal men have 7" arms - hell, no. I have always been very self-conscious of my arms for the very reason that I knew that were very small.
I mowed the lawn, busted rocks/dug holes for trees/fences, etc. (grew up in at the edge of the Hill country) Again, played more leg sports (soccer, cycling, track) but shot hoops when I could. So, I guess call me weak genetics. No excuse.
I agree looking around most men have roughly 13-14" arms, but fleshy. Given the increase in sedentary lifestyles…
On a related note, I had a student suggest (on an exam) that metrosexuals were people with XXY genes–somewhere between men and women, a third sex if you will. So, maybe that will give some insight in the state of men’s arms.