i have been working out a lot lately, my arms are getting bigger but they are not well defined… my questions is, how do i get them to not only be big be defined? thanks
Lose bodyfat…get leaner.
You work on definition after you have some size on you. I don’t mean a little size. Any size you gain, expect to lose at least some of it while dieting. That is why most bodybuilders are significantly larger in the off season than their contest weight. Your arms may be a smooth 17" while gaining. They may drop an inch or more when dieting.
Working on definition too soon before you actually build a solid base of muscle mass will simply set you back to square one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You work on definition after you have some size on you. I don’t mean a little size. Any size you gain, expect to lose at least some of it while dieting. That is why most bodybuilders are significantly larger in the off season than their contest weight. Your arms may be a smooth 17" while gaining. They may drop an inch or more when dieting.
Working on definition too soon before you actually build a solid base of muscle mass will simply set you back to square one.[/quote]
I noticed in an earlier thread you referred to 15 inch arms as ‘small’, what to you are good or respectable sized arms?
[quote]Politico wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You work on definition after you have some size on you. I don’t mean a little size. Any size you gain, expect to lose at least some of it while dieting. That is why most bodybuilders are significantly larger in the off season than their contest weight. Your arms may be a smooth 17" while gaining. They may drop an inch or more when dieting.
Working on definition too soon before you actually build a solid base of muscle mass will simply set you back to square one.
I noticed in an earlier thread you referred to 15 inch arms as ‘small’, what to you are good or respectable sized arms?
[/quote]
Even most bodybuilders would consider an arm over 17" “big”. In general, I would say that someone who can get their arms over 18" has very good genetics for overall muscle growth. I have seen several people who have trained hard for decades who haven’t been able to get their arms over that measurement so I use that as a rule of genetic potential.
Most of society would start noticing your arms and at least think you work out with arms 16" and above. 17" would be “big” to most people and over that would get a lot of people talking about you behind your back.
The only difference would be between contest shape and the everyday conditioning of the off season. A true ripped to shreds arm of 17" in contest condition would be visually more impressive than a smoother arm of 18-19". The problem is, most people will never be in contest shape because most people will never compete.
So if I’m 5’10 and have about 15.5 right now, I should shoot for 17+ before I can feel good about em?
[quote]Politico wrote:
So if I’m 5’10 and have about 15.5 right now, I should shoot for 17+ before I can feel good about em?[/quote]
What you just wrote makes no sense. How could anyone else tell you when you should “feel good” about your arms?
post a pic of your arm
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Politico wrote:
So if I’m 5’10 and have about 15.5 right now, I should shoot for 17+ before I can feel good about em?
What you just wrote makes no sense. How could anyone else tell you when you should “feel good” about your arms?[/quote]
I’ll second that. You need to feel good about yourself now period. As far as being satisfied, I’ll never really be satisfied unless I have 20+ inch arms but you should decide what your goal is, Professor X can not do that and even if he was willing to that is not the way to live life, letting other decide your plans. Be your own man.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Politico wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You work on definition after you have some size on you. I don’t mean a little size. Any size you gain, expect to lose at least some of it while dieting. That is why most bodybuilders are significantly larger in the off season than their contest weight. Your arms may be a smooth 17" while gaining. They may drop an inch or more when dieting.
Working on definition too soon before you actually build a solid base of muscle mass will simply set you back to square one.
I noticed in an earlier thread you referred to 15 inch arms as ‘small’, what to you are good or respectable sized arms?
Even most bodybuilders would consider an arm over 17" “big”. In general, I would say that someone who can get their arms over 18" has very good genetics for overall muscle growth. I have seen several people who have trained hard for decades who haven’t been able to get their arms over that measurement so I use that as a rule of genetic potential.
Most of society would start noticing your arms and at least think you work out with arms 16" and above. 17" would be “big” to most people and over that would get a lot of people talking about you behind your back.
The only difference would be between contest shape and the everyday conditioning of the off season. A true ripped to shreds arm of 17" in contest condition would be visually more impressive than a smoother arm of 18-19". The problem is, most people will never be in contest shape because most people will never compete.[/quote]
However, a 15-inch, defined arm on someone of my size would look huge, especially in an extra-medium shirt.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Even most bodybuilders would consider an arm over 17" “big”. In general, I would say that someone who can get their arms over 18" has very good genetics for overall muscle growth. I have seen several people who have trained hard for decades who haven’t been able to get their arms over that measurement so I use that as a rule of genetic potential.
Most of society would start noticing your arms and at least think you work out with arms 16" and above. 17" would be “big” to most people and over that would get a lot of people talking about you behind your back.
The only difference would be between contest shape and the everyday conditioning of the off season. A true ripped to shreds arm of 17" in contest condition would be visually more impressive than a smoother arm of 18-19". The problem is, most people will never be in contest shape because most people will never compete.[/quote]
Prof X- Are you refering to a flexed or unflexed measurement?
As a general rule of thumb of mine all body parts should not be flexed when measured aside from your arms, because hell, your always flexing them anyways. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this same philosophy a lot of other places too.
[quote]GreenTerror79 wrote:
As a general rule of thumb of mine all body parts should not be flexed when measured aside from your arms, because hell, your always flexing them anyways. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this same philosophy a lot of other places too.[/quote]
I would agree with that. But a flexed arm at 17" with average bodyfat just doesn’t seem THAT big.
(I guess if you are ocn2000 it would be)
[quote]cueball wrote:
GreenTerror79 wrote:
As a general rule of thumb of mine all body parts should not be flexed when measured aside from your arms, because hell, your always flexing them anyways. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this same philosophy a lot of other places too.
I would agree with that. But a flexed arm at 17" with average bodyfat just doesn’t seem THAT big.
(I guess if you are ocn2000 it would be)[/quote]
A 17" arm ISN’T that big. I didn’t say it was. I wrote that “most of society” would view it as big. Most of society views Brad Pitt as “built” and gave Tom Cruise an award for “best biceps”. Most of society thinks anyone carrying more muscle than a high school quarterback is on drugs.
Most people who lift weights regularly and around bodybuilding wouldn’t consider most arms under 18" big today.
[quote]GreenTerror79 wrote:
As a general rule of thumb of mine all body parts should not be flexed when measured aside from your arms[/quote]
This is true. Any biceps measurement you read about is done flexed. That is another one of those things that should be common knowledge.
[quote]Imen de Naars wrote:
post a pic of your arm[/quote]
And don’t forget to include a Converse in the picture for proper B.F. comparison!
Hey… 15.5 inch arms are better than 14.5 inch arms… right.
Don’t become obssessed with the measurement (although, of course, it’s a great way of checking progress).
Just keep training hard and smart and they will continue to grow to your genetic potential. It’ll be a good few years before you’ll know what that potential is… enjoy the journey…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
cueball wrote:
GreenTerror79 wrote:
As a general rule of thumb of mine all body parts should not be flexed when measured aside from your arms, because hell, your always flexing them anyways. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this same philosophy a lot of other places too.
I would agree with that. But a flexed arm at 17" with average bodyfat just doesn’t seem THAT big.
(I guess if you are ocn2000 it would be)
A 17" arm ISN’T that big. I didn’t say it was. I wrote that “most of society” would view it as big. Most of society views Brad Pitt as “built” and gave Tom Cruise an award for “best biceps”. Most of society thinks anyone carrying more muscle than a high school quarterback is on drugs.
Most people who lift weights regularly and around bodybuilding wouldn’t consider most arms under 18" big today.[/quote]
I aree with your sentiments as far as what “society” would consider big. That’s the reason I aske the Flexed/unflexed question was for clarification to your statment-“Even most bodybuilders would consider an arm over 17” “big”.
I would consider an unflexed arm at 17" big. At a decent bodyfat percentage that would put it over 18" flexed, which I would consider “big”. I’m not trying to get into it with you, I was just trying to understand your position in regards to the measurement.
c
[quote]ldanny wrote:
i have been working out a lot lately, my arms are getting bigger but they are not well defined… my questions is, how do i get them to not only be big be defined? thanks[/quote]
We have already had this discussion. Except here you will not have the sea of idiots saying no to what I told you.
The arms only get bigger with bodyweight. They are a very lean part of the body. Cutting for arm definition is stupid. Continue to bulk until you have the size all over your body that you are looking for, then cut.
You want to be jacked with your arms to impress chicks. Its not going to work without the rest of a body.
[quote]cueball wrote:
GreenTerror79 wrote:
As a general rule of thumb of mine all body parts should not be flexed when measured aside from your arms, because hell, your always flexing them anyways. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this same philosophy a lot of other places too.
I would agree with that. But a flexed arm at 17" with average bodyfat just doesn’t seem THAT big.
(I guess if you are ocn2000 it would be)[/quote]
If you are 5’5" it would be pretty big. You would also have to take into account the general size of the rest of the body. Of course that won’t change the size (in inches), but would play into how the arm would appear visually. As would the BF% already mentioned.