so was wondering what typically is seen as a small upper leg
a decent upper leg, a good upper leg and an amazing upper leg size
assuming the leg in question doesn’t have super high body fat
shoe please
The shoe would only help if the person in question had a bodyfat of over 17.8730485743%. Anything under that doesn’t require a shoe.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
The shoe would only help if the person in question had a bodyfat of over 17.8730485743%. Anything under that doesn’t require a shoe. [/quote]
can you use a fish instead?
The “shoe” joke is a little outdated. It’s not even remotely funny. You didn’t get the memo?
Seriously…
Arnold’s Legs were 24’ without the striations through the quads. While Arnold was awesome, his friends would still tease him about being Mr. O despite having tiny legs. So 24’ in my mind is about the same as having 16’ arms.
For bodybuilding, your calves should surely measure greater than your arms. For your calves to be impressive they should measure equal to your neck. Steve Reeves had 17’ Arms, Neck, and Calves. He’s considered to be pretty symmetrical.
You might also have to accept that fact that your neck will always be bigger than your calves or arms. I imagine for a lot of people it would be difficult to gain enough overall body mass to get bigger arms/calves without getting an even bigger neck in the process.
[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
The “shoe” joke is a little outdated. It’s not even remotely funny. You didn’t get the memo?[/quote]
I disagree. It’s not outdated, it’s a classic.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Seriously…
Arnold’s Legs were 24’ without the striations through the quads. While Arnold was awesome, his friends would still tease him about being Mr. O despite having tiny legs. So 24’ in my mind is about the same as having 16’ arms.
For bodybuilding, your calves should surely measure greater than your arms. For your calves to be impressive they should measure equal to your neck. Steve Reeves had 17’ Arms, Neck, and Calves. He’s considered to be pretty symmetrical. [/quote]
You do realize that ’ means feet right?
I have a hard time believing Arnold’s legs were 24 inches…Is that really true?
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Seriously…
Arnold’s Legs were 24’ without the striations through the quads. While Arnold was awesome, his friends would still tease him about being Mr. O despite having tiny legs. So 24’ in my mind is about the same as having 16’ arms.
For bodybuilding, your calves should surely measure greater than your arms. For your calves to be impressive they should measure equal to your neck. Steve Reeves had 17’ Arms, Neck, and Calves. He’s considered to be pretty symmetrical.
You might also have to accept that fact that your neck will always be bigger than your calves or arms. I imagine for a lot of people it would be difficult to gain enough overall body mass to get bigger arms/calves without getting an even bigger neck in the process.
[/quote]
thanks
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I have a hard time believing Arnold’s legs were 24 inches…Is that really true?[/quote]
Doubtful. I personally wouldn’t believe any measurements of any of these guys for the most part, at least until recently, but his legs weren’t that small. There are guys who don’t lift weights with quads that size.
Arnold wasn’t known for small quads when he was competing. His legs were about as developed as everyone else’s. Huge gigantic quads were not wanted back then. Before the likes of Tom Platz, no one had even seen too many guys with legs that developed.
It depends on your height. There are plenty of bacsketball players that look like they have chicken legs that are probably over 24" circumference. The average 5’9-10" athlete can easily achieve 30" thighs.
The guy calling the shoe joke outdated just joined this month…is there another shoe joke out there?
On an average height frame:
24" = Neither chicken legs nor thick ones. I don’t have real proof, but I’m going to go as far as to guarantee that Arnold’s legs were not 24". As ‘small’ proportionally as they were, he was a 6’2 Mr. Olympia.
Earl Campbell had 36" thighs while playing for the Houston Oilers. He was 5’11, 240ish pounds and relatively lean. Just to give an idea of how big that is.
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
The guy calling the shoe joke outdated just joined this month…is there another shoe joke out there?[/quote]
probably same guy with two accounts
[quote]Dirty_Bulk wrote:
Earl Campbell had 36" thighs while playing for the Houston Oilers. He was 5’11, 240ish pounds and relatively lean. Just to give an idea of how big that is. [/quote]
I don’t believe it, not saying it isn’t true but something you have see in person to believe. I would be surprised if Ronnie’s thighs were much above 36". That is an ungodly huge thigh.
Also thighs can be measured halfway or at the thickest point and there is usually a 2-4" difference there, so we need to know which measuring point you are talking about.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
Dirty_Bulk wrote:
Earl Campbell had 36" thighs while playing for the Houston Oilers. He was 5’11, 240ish pounds and relatively lean. Just to give an idea of how big that is.
I don’t believe it, not saying it isn’t true but something you have see in person to believe. I would be surprised if Ronnie’s thighs were much above 36". That is an ungodly huge thigh.
Also thighs can be measured halfway or at the thickest point and there is usually a 2-4" difference there, so we need to know which measuring point you are talking about.[/quote]
I don’t know anyone (in bodybuilding) who would measure their thigh at any site other than the thickest circumference.
I have heard that measurement for Campbell before, and like you said, 36" thighs are so large that you can’t buy clothes off the rack. He wasn’t that far behind though. Campbell also wasn’t in “contest shape” so it isn’t that hard to believe that his legs were that big. He was a freak himself. I do, however, believe that Coleman and others are about that size.
Can someone PM me about what the shoe joke is about…?
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Seriously…
For bodybuilding, your calves should surely measure greater than your arms. For your calves to be impressive they should measure equal to your neck. Steve Reeves had 17’ Arms, Neck, and Calves. He’s considered to be pretty symmetrical.
[/quote]
I don’t think any pro bodybuilders have calves that r bigger than their arm, but it would help them look more symmetrical
[quote]gorilla190 wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
Seriously…
For bodybuilding, your calves should surely measure greater than your arms. For your calves to be impressive they should measure equal to your neck. Steve Reeves had 17’ Arms, Neck, and Calves. He’s considered to be pretty symmetrical.
I don’t think any pro bodybuilders have calves that r bigger than their arm, but it would help them look more symmetrical [/quote]
Agreed. There aren’t too many pro’s with calves over 23".
It is well understood that calves are the most resistant muscle group when it comes to overall growth for some lifters. My arms grow as long as I lift heavy. It has taken me years just to get my calves to a solid 18", however.