We all, well almost all, want to get HYYYOOOGGGEEE, but when are we truly big? Weight you can put up is the best way to measure raw strength, but how do we measure size. Measurements are the best way to get the answer, but we always find ourselves wanting more. I have to throw some numbers and measurements out there to see if everyone agrees with me.
Assume the measurements are on a 5’8" with 10% bodyfat, lets use that for the basis of comparison.
Chest:
Tiny = < 37"
Small = 37" - 43"
Medium = 44" - 52"
Large = 53" and over
Forearms:
Tiny = < 9"
Small = 9" - 11"
Medium = 12" - 15"
Large = 16" and over
Calves:
Tiny = < 13"
Small = 14" - 16"
Medium = 17" - 19"
Large = 20" and over
Arms:
Tiny = < 11"
Small = 11" - 14"
Medium = 15" - 18"
Large = 19" and over
Legs:
Tiny = < 21"
Small = 21" to 25"
Medium = 25" - 30"
Large = 31" and over
Waist:
Tiny = < 28"
Small = 28" - 33"
Medium = 33" - 37"
Large = 38" and over
Neck:
Tiny = < 13"
Small = 13" to 16"
Medium = 17" to 21"
Large = 21" and over
If you don’t agree with a range, just throw in what you think, ill adjust it according to popular opinion. I just want to know because I think some of my parts may be lacking visually, but the measure up.
So many people fall outside the range 5’8". I thought a pretty good way to measure size is weight compared to height. I think Scott M was pretty accurate when he said 3.5 pounds per inch of height. I’m 77 inches, therefore I need to be 270 to be pretty damn big. That’s basically Lou Ferrigno’s size so I think it’s pretty accurate. Of course you’d need to be at a low enough bf % as well…
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
So many people fall outside the range 5’8". I thought a pretty good way to measure size is weight compared to height. I think Scott M was pretty accurate when he said 3.5 pounds per inch of height. I’m 77 inches, therefore I need to be 270 to be pretty damn big. That’s basically Lou Ferrigno’s size so I think it’s pretty accurate. Of course you’d need to be at a low enough bf % as well…[/quote]
Well, thanks for that, but one could have 34" legs, but a 45" chest. I was just trying to use “my” scale to determine what body parts are lacking.
Hey my opinion gets chimed in before I even get a chance to respond haha. Once you cross into that 4.0+ lbs/inch range you are a Rick James certified super freak, 3.5 is probably achievable by most who are willing to put in 5-10 years of dedicated(and successful) size gaining.
You can find some of those ideal bodypart comparisons if you search greek ideal or something similar to that, I don’t find them all that accurate.
For the 5’8" crowd, someone who achieves the ‘Greek Ideal’ - there are several but generally the same- that person would fall into your small category, (depending on wrist/frame size, of course).
I am curious, why should the waist get bigger? Isn’t a small waist one of the goals for bodybuilding?
Another question, is this for natural or enhanced folks?
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Hey my opinion gets chimed in before I even get a chance to respond haha. Once you cross into that 4.0+ lbs/inch range you are a Rick James certified super freak, 3.5 is probably achievable by most who are willing to put in 5-10 years of dedicated(and successful) size gaining.
You can find some of those ideal bodypart comparisons if you search greek ideal or something similar to that, I don’t find them all that accurate. [/quote]
Yeah, I’m not a big fan of those greek ideal mearsurements either. The problem with those are, you actually need to have an ideal bone structure for them to look like they should.
Frank Zane looked awesome at 185-191 lbs, and is considered by many to have had the “most aesthetic” physique of any Olympia contender. But, unless you’ve got Zane’s bone structure, you’re probably not going to look nearly as impressive at 185 lbs.
On the other hand, anyone, regardless of bone structure, is going to have an impressive musculature if they reach the 3.5-4+ lbs/inch mark.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Hey my opinion gets chimed in before I even get a chance to respond haha. Once you cross into that 4.0+ lbs/inch range you are a Rick James certified super freak, 3.5 is probably achievable by most who are willing to put in 5-10 years of dedicated(and successful) size gaining.
[/quote]
This is my exact opionion.
I think at 3lbs/inch at a low bf most people will look good.
3.5lbs/inch is big
4lbs/inch is FREAK
I am currently at 3.38 lb/in. That’s 240 at 5’11". To be honest, because I have to be, I don’t have a low body fat percentage. Not sure exactly what it is, but not low. You can see my abs on a pale moon night while sacrificing your neighbor’s dog. Yup, that low.
To be 3.5 I only need to gain 9 lbs. I was in the medium range on all of the measurement ranges. Nope. To be honest my waist is 38.
The lbs/inch thing is considering that you are in a lean off season bodybuilder shape at least. We could look at bodybuilding contest weight as well… then some egos would be shattered haha. Just in case anyone thinks they are too big, Ronnie Coleman at his peak was 4.28(approximately) on a bodybuilding stage.
i would have to be like 258 to be considered huge… im 275 right now… but right around 23% or so if i had to guess… i figured i would probably be a lean 240ish right now if i cut down… but i still have a long time to go!
This is getting a teeny bit off the original topic, but related to the lbs/inch thing.
I recently read about a new division that has been launched called “classic bodybuilding”, where your maximum contest weight is your height (cm) minus 100, plus an allowance of between 2-4kg, depending on your height.
Plugging that into an example, I’m 6’1", so my maximum contest weight would be (185.4 - 100) + 4 = 89.4kg, or 197 lbs.
That’s only 2.7 lbs per inch!!!
When I think of “classic bodybuilding”, I think of Arnold, but it seems he wouldn’t qualify to compete. WTF?
“Big” should also be defined in terms of cultural subjectivity. For example, a person who is big and aesthetic in the US is considered an abomination is some Asian countries. In this case, it is a lot easier to get big in Asia.
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
“Big” should also be defined in terms of cultural subjectivity. For example, a person who is big and aesthetic in the US is considered an abomination is some Asian countries. In this case, it is a lot easier to get big in Asia.[/quote]
No it shouldn’t, you should compare yourself to the best in the world at whatever it is you are comparing. Not your hometown.
[quote]Kalle wrote:
undeadlift wrote:
“Big” should also be defined in terms of cultural subjectivity. For example, a person who is big and aesthetic in the US is considered an abomination is some Asian countries. In this case, it is a lot easier to get big in Asia.
No it shouldn’t, you should compare yourself to the best in the world at whatever it is you are comparing. Not your hometown.[/quote]
True, plus, from what I’ve seen and read, while it may not be as popular, larger bodybuilders are more interesting to people in other countries than they are “abominations”.
There are people on this board who claim to never have even seen someone with arms over 18" in person so people like that should not consider themselves “big” simply because they haven’t been personally exposed to what “big” is.
Obviously, we are speaking in terms of bodybuilding and not simply some subjective criteria where everyone standing next to someone smaller is “big”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Kalle wrote:
undeadlift wrote:
“Big” should also be defined in terms of cultural subjectivity. For example, a person who is big and aesthetic in the US is considered an abomination is some Asian countries. In this case, it is a lot easier to get big in Asia.
No it shouldn’t, you should compare yourself to the best in the world at whatever it is you are comparing. Not your hometown.
True, plus, from what I’ve seen and read, while it may not be as popular, larger bodybuilders are more interesting to people in other countries than they are “abominations”.
There are people on this board who claim to never have even seen someone with arms over 18" in person so people like that should not consider themselves “big” simply because they haven’t been personally exposed to what “big” is.
Obviously, we are speaking in terms of bodybuilding and not simply some subjective criteria where everyone standing next to someone smaller is “big”.[/quote]
Ah, if bodybuilding is the case, then that’s true. In any case, I was just providing a different point of view.
Ah, if bodybuilding is the case, then that’s true. In any case, I was just providing a different point of view.[/quote]
Why wouldn’t it be the case? What is the deal with some of you trying so hard to NOT see this as a bodybuilding website? This isn’t even the first time you’ve done this. We can’t even escape you jackasses in the BODYBUILDING forum of this BODYBUILDING WEBSITE.