For whatever reason I’ve found the same to be true about myself. Maybe we’re lucky- most people have trouble with their legs, and those are the hardest things to work on. So if they come easier to you, why complain?
[quote]kox wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Lol waitasecond…I don’t care how weak your upper body is, I contend that with only a 245x5 squat (barring something serious, like missing a kneecap), it is not possible to have a “dominant” lower body. jeez kid. [/quote]
I have never squatted more than 60kgs and I have 26.5-27inch (depends on day) quads and my arms are only 15+". And out of 15 months of training I trained legs for only 8-9 months. I’m overall weak, but my upper body is stronger than legs, yet they’re so much bigger. I can db curl 20kgs for reps, bench press is small (80kg for 3 reps on incline), row 80kg for reps. I know that’s weak, but it’s still more in comparison to legs. But op should just increase upper body strength.
In before you flame me, I know what you mean, that if you’re that small, then you can’t have anything dominant. But even if I’m small, legs aren’t that small, dwarfing the sh** out of my upper body.
So the point of my post is: if I squat even less than him, that doesn’t mean I can’t have dominant legs size-wise. [/quote]
?? Where the hell are you placing that tape measure?
27" quads???
In that photo?
You know your supposed to start with “0”, right?
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]Lakkhamu wrote:
First of all, the 245x5 was done 7 months ago and although this is nothing spectacular I currently squat 335x6, which just in case is high bar narrow stance ass to grass. Even then, however, my bench is still stuck at 205x6. I currently run HCT-12, to which I can say I respond pretty well, but I think I will reduce the volume of the squats and follow a different protocol on them exclusively, perhaps this A 6-Week Squat, Bench, or Deadlift Program or
I don’t think of changing my program any time soon, though, I’ve had enough of program hopping.
Thanks for those who responded seriously.[/quote]
LOL why would you provide non-current numbers? [/quote]
x2 lol[/quote]
x3 No one serious does shit like that. No one cares how much I was lifting half a year ago if my strength is greater now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]kox wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Lol waitasecond…I don’t care how weak your upper body is, I contend that with only a 245x5 squat (barring something serious, like missing a kneecap), it is not possible to have a “dominant” lower body. jeez kid. [/quote]
I have never squatted more than 60kgs and I have 26.5-27inch (depends on day) quads and my arms are only 15+". And out of 15 months of training I trained legs for only 8-9 months. I’m overall weak, but my upper body is stronger than legs, yet they’re so much bigger. I can db curl 20kgs for reps, bench press is small (80kg for 3 reps on incline), row 80kg for reps. I know that’s weak, but it’s still more in comparison to legs. But op should just increase upper body strength.
In before you flame me, I know what you mean, that if you’re that small, then you can’t have anything dominant. But even if I’m small, legs aren’t that small, dwarfing the sh** out of my upper body.
So the point of my post is: if I squat even less than him, that doesn’t mean I can’t have dominant legs size-wise. [/quote]
?? Where the hell are you placing that tape measure?
27" quads???
In that photo?
You know your supposed to start with “0”, right?[/quote]
Lol 6’2" X
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]kox wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Lol waitasecond…I don’t care how weak your upper body is, I contend that with only a 245x5 squat (barring something serious, like missing a kneecap), it is not possible to have a “dominant” lower body. jeez kid. [/quote]
I have never squatted more than 60kgs and I have 26.5-27inch (depends on day) quads and my arms are only 15+". And out of 15 months of training I trained legs for only 8-9 months. I’m overall weak, but my upper body is stronger than legs, yet they’re so much bigger. I can db curl 20kgs for reps, bench press is small (80kg for 3 reps on incline), row 80kg for reps. I know that’s weak, but it’s still more in comparison to legs. But op should just increase upper body strength.
In before you flame me, I know what you mean, that if you’re that small, then you can’t have anything dominant. But even if I’m small, legs aren’t that small, dwarfing the sh** out of my upper body.
So the point of my post is: if I squat even less than him, that doesn’t mean I can’t have dominant legs size-wise. [/quote]
?? Where the hell are you placing that tape measure?
27" quads???
In that photo?
You know your supposed to start with “0”, right?[/quote]
Lol 6’2" X
[/quote]
Then why do they think these measurements are “big”?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]kox wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Lol waitasecond…I don’t care how weak your upper body is, I contend that with only a 245x5 squat (barring something serious, like missing a kneecap), it is not possible to have a “dominant” lower body. jeez kid. [/quote]
I have never squatted more than 60kgs and I have 26.5-27inch (depends on day) quads and my arms are only 15+". And out of 15 months of training I trained legs for only 8-9 months. I’m overall weak, but my upper body is stronger than legs, yet they’re so much bigger. I can db curl 20kgs for reps, bench press is small (80kg for 3 reps on incline), row 80kg for reps. I know that’s weak, but it’s still more in comparison to legs. But op should just increase upper body strength.
In before you flame me, I know what you mean, that if you’re that small, then you can’t have anything dominant. But even if I’m small, legs aren’t that small, dwarfing the sh** out of my upper body.
So the point of my post is: if I squat even less than him, that doesn’t mean I can’t have dominant legs size-wise. [/quote]
?? Where the hell are you placing that tape measure?
27" quads???
In that photo?
You know your supposed to start with “0”, right?[/quote]
Lol 6’2" X
[/quote]
Then why do they think these measurements are “big”?
[/quote]
Drugs? (not the ones that make you big)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]kox wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Lol waitasecond…I don’t care how weak your upper body is, I contend that with only a 245x5 squat (barring something serious, like missing a kneecap), it is not possible to have a “dominant” lower body. jeez kid. [/quote]
I have never squatted more than 60kgs and I have 26.5-27inch (depends on day) quads and my arms are only 15+". And out of 15 months of training I trained legs for only 8-9 months. I’m overall weak, but my upper body is stronger than legs, yet they’re so much bigger. I can db curl 20kgs for reps, bench press is small (80kg for 3 reps on incline), row 80kg for reps. I know that’s weak, but it’s still more in comparison to legs. But op should just increase upper body strength.
In before you flame me, I know what you mean, that if you’re that small, then you can’t have anything dominant. But even if I’m small, legs aren’t that small, dwarfing the sh** out of my upper body.
So the point of my post is: if I squat even less than him, that doesn’t mean I can’t have dominant legs size-wise. [/quote]
?? Where the hell are you placing that tape measure?
27" quads???
In that photo?
You know your supposed to start with “0”, right?[/quote]
Lol 6’2" X
[/quote]
Then why do they think these measurements are “big”?
[/quote]
I don’t think they believe that 27inch quads are large. I certainly don’t think mine are. I think they are saying in comparison with the rest of their physique they appear “big”
Many of the girls I know tell me that my ass is huge…but I KNOW they just jelly 
[quote]Meeko wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]kox wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Lol waitasecond…I don’t care how weak your upper body is, I contend that with only a 245x5 squat (barring something serious, like missing a kneecap), it is not possible to have a “dominant” lower body. jeez kid. [/quote]
I have never squatted more than 60kgs and I have 26.5-27inch (depends on day) quads and my arms are only 15+". And out of 15 months of training I trained legs for only 8-9 months. I’m overall weak, but my upper body is stronger than legs, yet they’re so much bigger. I can db curl 20kgs for reps, bench press is small (80kg for 3 reps on incline), row 80kg for reps. I know that’s weak, but it’s still more in comparison to legs. But op should just increase upper body strength.
In before you flame me, I know what you mean, that if you’re that small, then you can’t have anything dominant. But even if I’m small, legs aren’t that small, dwarfing the sh** out of my upper body.
So the point of my post is: if I squat even less than him, that doesn’t mean I can’t have dominant legs size-wise. [/quote]
?? Where the hell are you placing that tape measure?
27" quads???
In that photo?
You know your supposed to start with “0”, right?[/quote]
Lol 6’2" X
[/quote]
Then why do they think these measurements are “big”?
[/quote]
I don’t think they believe that 27inch quads are large. I certainly don’t think mine are. I think they are saying in comparison with the rest of their physique they appear “big”[/quote]
Cool?
Does it REALLY make sense to slow the growth of one’s most developed bodyparts when even those bodyparts are at best at an intermediate level of development?
Those who need more size overall should bring weak points up, not bring strong points down.
[quote]lumbahjack wrote:
Many of the girls I know tell me that my ass is huge…but I KNOW they just jelly :D[/quote]
YOU GOT A FAT ASS, BITCH
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]lumbahjack wrote:
Many of the girls I know tell me that my ass is huge…but I KNOW they just jelly :D[/quote]
YOU GOT A FAT ASS, BITCH[/quote]
Feelings have been hurt.
I actually only have 3 pairs of jeans that fit me at this point…Im think I’m just gonna start wearing sweatpants all the time…
[quote]lumbahjack wrote:
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]lumbahjack wrote:
Many of the girls I know tell me that my ass is huge…but I KNOW they just jelly :D[/quote]
YOU GOT A FAT ASS, BITCH[/quote]
Feelings have been hurt.
I actually only have 3 pairs of jeans that fit me at this point…Im think I’m just gonna start wearing sweatpants all the time…[/quote]
Get some pairs with sessi phrases on the ass, then ladeez will really be jeal
lolk /trollin
.
[quote]lumbahjack wrote:
[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
[quote]lumbahjack wrote:
Many of the girls I know tell me that my ass is huge…but I KNOW they just jelly :D[/quote]
YOU GOT A FAT ASS, BITCH[/quote]
Feelings have been hurt.
I actually only have 3 pairs of jeans that fit me at this point…Im think I’m just gonna start wearing sweatpants all the time…[/quote]
Come back and complain when you can deadlift over 600…
Seriously, what is this crap with beginners thinking they have super developed lower bodies when they can’t even squat double bodyweight?
It’s called not being anorexic.
Sorry if American culture or whatever has disillusioned you. Having 15" legs is NOT the fucking norm ladies.
[quote]kox wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Lol waitasecond…I don’t care how weak your upper body is, I contend that with only a 245x5 squat (barring something serious, like missing a kneecap), it is not possible to have a “dominant” lower body. jeez kid. [/quote]
I have never squatted more than 60kgs and I have 26.5-27inch (depends on day) quads and my arms are only 15+". And out of 15 months of training I trained legs for only 8-9 months. I’m overall weak, but my upper body is stronger than legs, yet they’re so much bigger. I can db curl 20kgs for reps, bench press is small (80kg for 3 reps on incline), row 80kg for reps. I know that’s weak, but it’s still more in comparison to legs. But op should just increase upper body strength.
In before you flame me, I know what you mean, that if you’re that small, then you can’t have anything dominant. But even if I’m small, legs aren’t that small, dwarfing the sh** out of my upper body.
So the point of my post is: if I squat even less than him, that doesn’t mean I can’t have dominant legs size-wise. [/quote]
I wish I had such underdeveloped thighs…maybe I could fit into my gf’s skinny jeans.
I don’t think they 're big, but I think they aren’t that small either. I can’t find jeans that would fit anymore. And when you add my smallish upper body, the proportions look ridicolous. So what I meant is they’re not huge, but there are not small and they’re dwarfing the sh** out of my small upper body. If I’d squat all this time, then they would be even bigger and I’d look like freak in the bad meaning of this word. Hell, even now clothed I look like the only bodyparts I train are legs.
I haven’t trained legs since January and from this time I made more progress on the upper half than I did from September to early January, the time when I trained legs.
And about not bringing them down. When I don’t train them they stay almost same. Only lost fullness. Quads look the same maybe hams are worse. I could make them bigger than they ever were in like 3 weeks. I’m just unable to bring up upper body while working out legs. Because they are just meant to be big and my upper body is meant to be small. I started with 22.5" thighs and 12.5" arms at almost 15 y/o. Now 26.5 thighs (SORRY I did cm to inches wrong, they are 26.5") and 15.3" arms. Note that I trained upper body twice the time I trained legs. And 15" arms are small at any height and I’m 6’2+". Besides I won’t compete. Who needs super big legs outside bodybuilding. I’ll go back to leg training after summer.
[quote]lumbahjack wrote:
Many of the girls I know tell me that my ass is huge…but I KNOW they just jelly :D[/quote]
Everyone loves my ass
I don’t get this whole “I can’t find jeans that fit” thing from guys with normal sized legs. If anything, the ass will pose an issue before the thighs do.
^^ My glutes grow as fast as thighs and they’re just as big. It’s just that 2d thing you can’t see it on picture, but my ass dwarfs my small back. Jeans are tight on ass, even tighter on thighs (skin tight) but there is so much space on waist, I gotta wear belt very tight. When I get them bigger then I’m fcked. I know there are some stores with jeans that fit, but I don’t think there are any in my region. I’ll have to wear sweatpants.
But really I don’t give a sh** about clothes. I just want to have more proportional body, so anyway I have to stop them growing for a while, until I have bigger back.
Just wear loose jeans sized too big for your waist. I’ve been doing it for the past two years.