What's Your Weight & Arm Measurement?

Training
121

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Professor X wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
…

That article claims ribcage expansion from pull overs, which is also bullshit.

After you think about that for a while, ask yourself where the references are in that article showing a true direct correlation between biceps height and body fat.

This is why an education is more valuable than an article.

I don’t see how it isn’t plainly obvious. You may not be able to tell exactly what someone’s arms look like by their flexed and relaxed measurements. But if the discrepancy between my flexed and unflexed arm measurements grows, then isn’t it likely that I’m getting leaner?

Sure, based upon my genetics I may never have a 5 inch difference between relaxed and flexed measurements, or whatever Kevin Levrone had. But if the discrepancy between my flexed and relaxed measurements grows, then me flexing my bicep is contributing more to the flexed measurement than it was previously.

And if everything in that article is wrong because it has a section about ribcage expansion, then I guess the article is also wrong in saying that doing calf raises will make your calves bigger. [/quote]

You really walk around and see the world this way? Everything is either all good or all bad? Who said anything about calf raises not making your calves bigger?

I also didn’t write anything about “everything in that article” being wrong.

However, you just had two other posters tell you that his measurements were off as far as coming to some conclusion about body fat percentage based on biceps height (which is pretty damn ridiculous). How is it, in your head, this means that since calf raises build calves up, that everything the man writes must be correct?

122

I love anthropometrics. I will incorporate this information into my cybernetic matrix.

Next, we will assess cranial morphology.

123

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I love anthropometrics. I will incorporate this information into my cybernetic matrix.

Next, we will assess cranial morphology.[/quote]

124

My arms about 13 relaxed and 15.25 flexed. That’s a 2.25 difference (which he said is the most he ever measured) and I’m probably around 12% bodyfat. According to that article I should be like 3% bodyfat right? Anyways I still think there’s some truth to it. I just don’t carry a lot of fat in my arms.

125

[quote]Professor X wrote:

However, you just had two other posters tell you that his measurements were off as far as coming to some conclusion about body fat percentage based on biceps height (which is pretty damn ridiculous). How is it, in your head, this means that since calf raises build calves up, that everything the man writes must be correct?[/quote]

You’re the one who referenced the article talking about ribcage expansion as a point to discredit everything else the article said. I was mocking you for doing that. I guess my tone didn’t come across.

I get that people will have different biceps heights given their genetics. Some will have more peak and some won’t.

But for the induvidual, a person can still determine if they’re getting leaner or fatter by taking flexed and unflexed measurements. Because as the discrepancy grows between those numbers, they’re getting leaner in comparison to themselves.

Ronnie Coleman probably has a greater difference between his relaxed and flexed measurements when he’s out of season than Larry Scott had when he was about to step on stage. So, even though Larry Scott is leaner in this comparison, because Ronnie’s Biceps are so huge the difference between his flexed and relaxed measurements is greater.

But as Ronnie gets leaner, the difference between his flexed and relaxed measurements will continue to widen. And once Larry goes into his off season training and his bodyfat increases, the difference between his flexed and relaxed measurements will be less.

Of course, maybe an inch of difference between measurements for Ronnie means a 4% change in bodyfat while it may only mean a 2% change for Larry. I’m just trying to get across the point that even though it’s different for everyone, it’s still a way to gauge if you’re getting leaner or fatter.

There is no formula for determining leanness with arm measurements because genetics have predetermined the shape of muscle bellies, the amount biceps peak, etc. But, you can still use arm measurements as a tool to gauge your own progress. And that tool is probably more valuable than the bodyfat readout that cheap, electronic scales give you.

126

[quote]FightingScott wrote:

You’re the one who referenced the article talking about ribcage expansion as a point to discredit everything else the article said. I was mocking you for doing that. I guess my tone didn’t come across. [/quote]

YOU referenced an article. I simply pointed out that there seemed to be more than one thing he was wrong about in that article.

[quote]

I get that people will have different biceps heights given their genetics. Some will have more peak and some won’t.

But for the induvidual, a person can still determine if they’re getting leaner or fatter by taking flexed and unflexed measurements. Because as the discrepancy grows between those numbers, they’re getting leaner in comparison to themselves.

…

There is no formula for determining leanness with arm measurements because genetics have predetermined the shape of muscle bellies, the amount biceps peak, etc. But, you can still use arm measurements as a tool to gauge your own progress. And that tool is probably more valuable than the bodyfat readout that cheap, electronic scales give you. [/quote]

Why would anyone worry about this? Like someone should avoid skin calipers if they want some rough idea of how much fat they are carrying? A tape measure to your waist would give you a better understanding of how much fat you’ve lost than this. In fact, there are simply too many variations between individuals in terms of muscle shape for that type of measurement to make any sense.

127

Ok. I fucked up with two words.

You referenced THAT the article article talkED about ribcage expansion as a point to discredit everything else the article said.

But the point about flexed and relaxed measurements in this article is that you can’t flex fat.

Yeah, getting pinched is a better way to determine progress because you can get within .5% of your exact bodyfat percentage.

But using arm measurements is still better than shitty electronic scales.

I’m just trying to get across the points that

(1) You can use arm measurements as a quick way to measure your progress by yourself with no fancy equipment.
(2) You can’t flex fat.

How are both of these wrong?

128

I know it’s a funny little addage, “you cant flex fat”, but it will change shape when the distance it’s stretched between closes, ie. an arm goes from being extended to flexed 90 degrees. Hoq many guys with ‘pudgy’, but large arms look bigger when they flex?

you know what, don’t bother to answer, the fact is any volumous mass will change shape, it’s just mucgh more impressive when the muscle in question is closer to being vein laden and fat free.

S

129

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Ok. I fucked up with two words.

You referenced THAT the article article talkED about ribcage expansion as a point to discredit everything else the article said.

But the point about flexed and relaxed measurements in this article is that you can’t flex fat.

Yeah, getting pinched is a better way to determine progress because you can get within .5% of your exact bodyfat percentage.

But using arm measurements is still better than shitty electronic scales.

I’m just trying to get across the points that

(1) You can use arm measurements as a quick way to measure your progress by yourself with no fancy equipment.
(2) You can’t flex fat.

How are both of these wrong?[/quote]

I agree with you about the electronic scales. I’ve seen mine fluctuate 10 points in the same day, and true you can’t flex fat but look at it this way. Suppose you put on some major mass in your arms over the year while your bodyfat remains the same.

Your flexed/relaxed difference will grow. As profX stated waist or girth measurements would be a better indicator. Beleive me, I would love to claim a 10% BF but I can’t, so to me, that article is very misleading.

130

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Ok. I fucked up with two words.

You referenced THAT the article article talkED about ribcage expansion as a point to discredit everything else the article said.

But the point about flexed and relaxed measurements in this article is that you can’t flex fat.

Yeah, getting pinched is a better way to determine progress because you can get within .5% of your exact bodyfat percentage.

But using arm measurements is still better than shitty electronic scales.

I’m just trying to get across the points that

(1) You can use arm measurements as a quick way to measure your progress by yourself with no fancy equipment.
(2) You can’t flex fat.

How are both of these wrong?[/quote]

thanks for sticking up for my statement Scott, im glad someone agrees with me.

and i know we’re getting off topic now but why is it that just about every article i’ve read and competing BB PT’s that i know have said that pullovers are helpful in ribcage expansion??

131

[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:

I agree with you about the electronic scales. I’ve seen mine fluctuate 10 points in the same day, and true you can’t flex fat but look at it this way. Suppose you put on some major mass in your arms over the year while your bodyfat remains the same. Your flexed/relaxed difference will grow. As profX stated waist or girth measurements would be a better indicator. Beleive me, I would love to claim a 10% BF but I can’t, so to me, that article is very misleading.

[/quote]
i agree with that, but i do believe it can give you a rough estimate. and in your situation, if you did put on a lot of MUSCLE mass on your arms your body fat PERCENTAGE would go down over all…

132

[quote]dakotah_13 wrote:
i agree with that, but i do believe it can give you a rough estimate. and in your situation, if you did put on a lot of MUSCLE mass on your arms your body fat PERCENTAGE would go down over all…
[/quote]

Knowing only that my relaxed measurement is 17.5 and my flexed measurement is slightly over 19, what is your rough estimate of my bodyfat? If you go by that article it is roughly 10%. Way off. Currently I’m closer to 20%. It may give you a rough esitmate for the average untrained public, but anyone that has put on a decent amount of muscle on their arms it will not give you good estimate at all.

In fact I carry very little fat in my arms compared to my waiste so even as my bodyfat drops my flexed and unflexed measurement does not change much. The only thing I see the difference in these measurements giving is an indication of the amount of lean muscle a person has, not their bodyfat.

133

395×513 44.5 KB

[quote]dakotah_13 wrote:
and i know we’re getting off topic now but why is it that just about every article i’ve read and competing BB PT’s that i know have said that pullovers are helpful in ribcage expansion?? [/quote]

There’s been at least one thread discussing how possible ribcage expansion was. Even if all the science points against it, then what did this guy do to get this kind of bone structure?

Whether you believe in it or not, Pullovers of all types are still a good exercise that will make your jacket size larger by working the Pecs and the Lats. So you’ll get muscle growth benefits that will mimic ribcage expansion even if it’s not possible. So, just do them.

134

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
then what did this guy do to get this kind of bone structure?
[/quote]

He inhaled. You do realize that the lifter in that picture didn’t walk around with his chest sticking out like that all day, right? That was how they did a side chest pose back then. It is no longer done that way as excessive protrusion of the chest like that is no longer seen as esthetic.

135

12" cold and unflexed…

that was a painful measurement, I would much rather post 13.5" flexed! haha, im trying to gain weight though

136

[quote]Professor X wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
then what did this guy do to get this kind of bone structure?

He inhaled. You do realize that the lifter in that picture didn’t walk around with his chest sticking out like that all day, right? That was how they did a side chest pose back then. It is no longer done that way as excessive protrusion of the chest like that is no longer seen as esthetic.[/quote]

Yup, and if you look at the pic, his back is probably right where his biceps are, so it’s also an illusion on the thickness of his chest

137

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Professor X wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
then what did this guy do to get this kind of bone structure?

He inhaled. You do realize that the lifter in that picture didn’t walk around with his chest sticking out like that all day, right? That was how they did a side chest pose back then. It is no longer done that way as excessive protrusion of the chest like that is no longer seen as esthetic.

Yup, and if you look at the pic, his back is probably right where his biceps are, so it’s also an illusion on the thickness of his chest[/quote]

He’s still got a freaky, silly-big ribcage.

138

180 lbs 17 1/8 flexed.

139

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
Professor X wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
then what did this guy do to get this kind of bone structure?

He inhaled. You do realize that the lifter in that picture didn’t walk around with his chest sticking out like that all day, right? That was how they did a side chest pose back then. It is no longer done that way as excessive protrusion of the chest like that is no longer seen as esthetic.

Yup, and if you look at the pic, his back is probably right where his biceps are, so it’s also an illusion on the thickness of his chest

He’s still got a freaky, silly-big ribcage. [/quote]

oh, i agree

140

218 and dropping.
18 13/16" cold flexed.