When Are Your Arms Considered Big?

Off Topic
41

[quote]ComixGuy wrote:

FYI~For his height and weight chart, I don�??t know how much lean mass these weights are but I would assume a bf% close to 10? Anybody know for certain, let me know.

Here is another way to determine what the ideal bicep (and other measurements) is/(are) using the Grecian ideal. I take this with a grain of salt and for fun since this would be slightly undersized for most of our goals. If nothing else when you are watching 300 again, you can say that you are larger than what the Greeks thought was the ideal body. In my case, especially the waist size.

http://www.fitness.com/tools/greek_proportions/?wrist=6.25&rdbUnit=1.

[/quote]

“Slightly undersized”?! It says I’m supposed to have a 39 inch chest and 14 inch arms. That would look Somali.

42

[quote]jtg987 wrote:

i just feel like they’re starting to get out of proportion to the rest of my body, they’re never going to be too big, just getting to that stage where i feel like they’re getting out of proportion…i aint going to be a 150lb weakling[/quote]

Any of the ratios help? Or are they too out-dated?

43

[quote]ComixGuy wrote:
jtg987 wrote:

i just feel like they’re starting to get out of proportion to the rest of my body, they’re never going to be too big, just getting to that stage where i feel like they’re getting out of proportion…i aint going to be a 150lb weakling

Any of the ratios help? Or are they too out-dated?
[/quote]

I meant the Reeves data. Not the Greeks - that one was put up for fun since it obviously is not what most on here are striving for.

44

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
ComixGuy wrote:

FYI~For his height and weight chart, I don�??t know how much lean mass these weights are but I would assume a bf% close to 10? Anybody know for certain, let me know.

Here is another way to determine what the ideal bicep (and other measurements) is/(are) using the Grecian ideal. I take this with a grain of salt and for fun since this would be slightly undersized for most of our goals. If nothing else when you are watching 300 again, you can say that you are larger than what the Greeks thought was the ideal body. In my case, especially the waist size.

http://www.fitness.com/tools/greek_proportions/?wrist=6.25&rdbUnit=1.

“Slightly undersized”?! It says I’m supposed to have a 39 inch chest and 14 inch arms. That would look Somali.[/quote]

You have very small wrists.

I’m glad I passed up the measurements according to that calculator.

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m glad I passed up the measurements according to that calculator. [/quote]

Yeah the Grecian one was for kicks although it is simpler than Reeves formulas. For Reeves, measuring each bone structure to calc the corresponding muscle size is a little tedious.

The hard part is coming to terms that my bone structure is messed up (according to his ideals) and that I don’t think I ever could meet the symmetry that he had outlined. Too small of a skull and too big of neck and ankles. Oh well, I will just go for more mass everywhere and hope it mutes the effect.

46

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Your arms may have grown quickly up to this point, but from what I’ve seen, most of the guys with the genetics to build arms close to 20" would have popped up to 18 pretty quickly (as in 2-3 years). You may experience a lot more turbulence to actually reach that 18". Putting the breaks on now may not be the best decision you’ve made.

Yeah, my arm progress has stalled somewhat. I didn’t do arms much early in my training, because I feel into the no-direct-arm-work trap and have small biceps.

The last year or so I have gotten up to over 17 inches, but I just can’t make over 17 1/2. I’m sure this a lot to do with my diet since I have been stuck around 225-230 for almost 6 months now. I would love to get to 18 inches.

Anyway, the point is, the further you get from the norm, or the average or whatever, the more work it is going to take to keep progressing. This is true in just about anything.[/quote]

I see what you are both saying, but I have a different take on the situation, as my arms tend to grow faster than the rest of my body as well.

My arm development (right now) is greater than the rest of my body. If my goal is to be proportionate, than backing off arm training may not be a bad idea. Once the rest of my body catches up, I’ll be able to resume making them bigger. I know my arm progress may slow down at some point, but at that point it’s not like the rest of my body’s progress is going to be speeding up.

So while my arm progress may stall the bigger they get, the rest of my body will be stalling as well. At the end of the day, my arms respond better to training than the rest of my body, whether that is right now or 3 years from now.

47

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Your arms may have grown quickly up to this point, but from what I’ve seen, most of the guys with the genetics to build arms close to 20" would have popped up to 18 pretty quickly (as in 2-3 years). You may experience a lot more turbulence to actually reach that 18". Putting the breaks on now may not be the best decision you’ve made.

Yeah, my arm progress has stalled somewhat. I didn’t do arms much early in my training, because I feel into the no-direct-arm-work trap and have small biceps.

The last year or so I have gotten up to over 17 inches, but I just can’t make over 17 1/2. I’m sure this a lot to do with my diet since I have been stuck around 225-230 for almost 6 months now. I would love to get to 18 inches.

Anyway, the point is, the further you get from the norm, or the average or whatever, the more work it is going to take to keep progressing. This is true in just about anything.

I see what you are both saying, but I have a different take on the situation, as my arms tend to grow faster than the rest of my body as well.

My arm development (right now) is greater than the rest of my body. If my goal is to be proportionate, than backing off arm training may not be a bad idea. Once the rest of my body catches up, I’ll be able to resume making them bigger. I know my arm progress may slow down at some point, but at that point it’s not like the rest of my body’s progress is going to be speeding up.

So while my arm progress may stall the bigger they get, the rest of my body will be stalling as well. At the end of the day, my arms respond better to training than the rest of my body, whether that is right now or 3 years from now.[/quote]

You don’t have a clue what they will do three years from now. It is taking me forever to get another inch on my arms. That was after they literally grew so fast up to 18" when I first got serious that they were covered on all sides with stretch marks.

I understand what you are saying, but I have yet to see someone with that problem of truly having biceps so huge that they dwarf everything else.

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

Naturally, those of you who claim this will find every excuse to not show a picture of your affliction.

48

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?
[/quote]

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.

49

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.[/quote]

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.

50

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Your arms may have grown quickly up to this point, but from what I’ve seen, most of the guys with the genetics to build arms close to 20" would have popped up to 18 pretty quickly (as in 2-3 years). You may experience a lot more turbulence to actually reach that 18". Putting the breaks on now may not be the best decision you’ve made.

Yeah, my arm progress has stalled somewhat. I didn’t do arms much early in my training, because I feel into the no-direct-arm-work trap and have small biceps.

The last year or so I have gotten up to over 17 inches, but I just can’t make over 17 1/2. I’m sure this a lot to do with my diet since I have been stuck around 225-230 for almost 6 months now. I would love to get to 18 inches.

Anyway, the point is, the further you get from the norm, or the average or whatever, the more work it is going to take to keep progressing. This is true in just about anything.

I see what you are both saying, but I have a different take on the situation, as my arms tend to grow faster than the rest of my body as well.

My arm development (right now) is greater than the rest of my body. If my goal is to be proportionate, than backing off arm training may not be a bad idea. Once the rest of my body catches up, I’ll be able to resume making them bigger. I know my arm progress may slow down at some point, but at that point it’s not like the rest of my body’s progress is going to be speeding up.

So while my arm progress may stall the bigger they get, the rest of my body will be stalling as well. At the end of the day, my arms respond better to training than the rest of my body, whether that is right now or 3 years from now.

You don’t have a clue what they will do three years from now. It is taking me forever to get another inch on my arms. That was after they literally grew so fast up to 18" when I first got serious that they were covered on all sides with stretch marks.

I understand what you are saying, but I have yet to see someone with that problem of truly having biceps so huge that they dwarf everything else.

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

Naturally, those of you who claim this will find every excuse to not show a picture of your affliction.[/quote]

Lol, I see what you’re saying. I guess my whole theory was based on staying proportionate, when the chances of becoming THAT inproportionate are pretty small. It all depends on how proportionate you want to be. I guess someone looking to be huge (read: ME) wouldn’t benefit from worrying about that until they ARE actually huge.

But I hope you’re not saying that I claim to have this affliction. Or that I have not posted a picture. Both would be false.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.[/quote]

Indeed, he was the first person I knew that was using. No clue what he took or how much, but he bragged about it, and we were young.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.[/quote]

Very interesting observation. I recall seeing old pics of Frank Sepe when he was a competitive BBer, and more recently, now that he’s off (and pushing fitness books he ‘authored’ -lol).

Anyway, the point being, nowadays, he looks like a bunch of mismatched bodyparts. Nothing seems to fit together, and I always wondered if that was the reason,… that he juiced so early on, and never really developed any real solid base underneath.

S

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Your arms may have grown quickly up to this point, but from what I’ve seen, most of the guys with the genetics to build arms close to 20" would have popped up to 18 pretty quickly (as in 2-3 years). You may experience a lot more turbulence to actually reach that 18". Putting the breaks on now may not be the best decision you’ve made.

Yeah, my arm progress has stalled somewhat. I didn’t do arms much early in my training, because I feel into the no-direct-arm-work trap and have small biceps.

The last year or so I have gotten up to over 17 inches, but I just can’t make over 17 1/2. I’m sure this a lot to do with my diet since I have been stuck around 225-230 for almost 6 months now. I would love to get to 18 inches.

Anyway, the point is, the further you get from the norm, or the average or whatever, the more work it is going to take to keep progressing. This is true in just about anything.

I see what you are both saying, but I have a different take on the situation, as my arms tend to grow faster than the rest of my body as well.

My arm development (right now) is greater than the rest of my body. If my goal is to be proportionate, than backing off arm training may not be a bad idea. Once the rest of my body catches up, I’ll be able to resume making them bigger. I know my arm progress may slow down at some point, but at that point it’s not like the rest of my body’s progress is going to be speeding up.

So while my arm progress may stall the bigger they get, the rest of my body will be stalling as well. At the end of the day, my arms respond better to training than the rest of my body, whether that is right now or 3 years from now.

You don’t have a clue what they will do three years from now. It is taking me forever to get another inch on my arms. That was after they literally grew so fast up to 18" when I first got serious that they were covered on all sides with stretch marks.

I understand what you are saying, but I have yet to see someone with that problem of truly having biceps so huge that they dwarf everything else.

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

Naturally, those of you who claim this will find every excuse to not show a picture of your affliction.[/quote]

i have seen someone with way out of proportion arms, just arms no back possibly chest it was impossible to tell because he completely hunched over due to his arms being so heavy it brought everything forward, the kid looked like a joke. he was short about 5’5 or less, saw him twice on nights out in the city, first time was fucked and with my mate and we ended up laughing at him

54

[quote]Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.[/quote]

i also have seen a little guy with huge and well build arms, and his legs were chicken like. i don’t think he has access to the “help”, he weight no most than 140. is there another way to do that?

55

[quote]juanjromero wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.

i also have seen a little guy with huge and well build arms, and his legs were chicken like. i don’t think he has access to the “help”, he weight no most than 140. is there another way to do that?[/quote]

At 140lbs, clearly your definition of “huge” is way fucking different than mine.

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
juanjromero wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.

i also have seen a little guy with huge and well build arms, and his legs were chicken like. i don’t think he has access to the “help”, he weight no most than 140. is there another way to do that?

At 140lbs, clearly your definition of “huge” is way fucking different than mine.[/quote]

140lbs at 3’2 tall aint bad though… :stuck_out_tongue:

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:
juanjromero wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.

i also have seen a little guy with huge and well build arms, and his legs were chicken like. i don’t think he has access to the “help”, he weight no most than 140. is there another way to do that?

At 140lbs, clearly your definition of “huge” is way fucking different than mine.[/quote]

believe me, they where 16", he is short. but he has no back, no lats, no legs, etc. but he seems to devote his workouts to arms. from shoulder to wrist. in any case, the thing is, his arms don’t look, ARE huge compared to his body. my question goes to address the matter of not being possible to gain arm mass without gaining overall mass. I am not arguing, I am just asking just to know.

58

[quote]Renton wrote:
Professor X wrote:
juanjromero wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.

i also have seen a little guy with huge and well build arms, and his legs were chicken like. i don’t think he has access to the “help”, he weight no most than 140. is there another way to do that?

At 140lbs, clearly your definition of “huge” is way fucking different than mine.

140lbs at 3’2 tall aint bad though… :P[/quote]

that’s is the point, the shortest the person, the huge they look with less weight.

59

I think that for any body part to be considered huge (not measured as such), it has something to do with the neck, waist leg visual proportion, someone with a big neck and big calves will give the ilusion of small arm, but the same arm measure will look huge (bigger than expected) in a person with less neck/waist/calves.

so (i think) your arm is considered huge, when it reaches a measure way greater than your neck/waist/calves and weight may hint.

60

[quote]Professor X wrote:
juanjromero wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Is there even one example of anything like that where someone’s biceps are 20" but the rest of their body looks like it belongs on a 15 year old girl?

In my early 20’s I did know a guy that looked awkward, at least to me. He really only worked his biceps/triceps/shoulders. He never did anything for legs or back really. He looked very bad IMO, especially when you saw how puny his forearms were compared to his biceps.

I hold the opinion that people like that can contribute odd growth like that to very early steroid use before they ever gain any real muscle on their own. I would think it is very hard to build big arms with little to no forearm growth (or overall body growth) without “help”.

i also have seen a little guy with huge and well build arms, and his legs were chicken like. i don’t think he has access to the “help”, he weight no most than 140. is there another way to do that?

At 140lbs, clearly your definition of “huge” is way fucking different than mine.[/quote]

never mind, you should not spend your keystrokes on people lower than 250pounds.

It is my fault for asking questions to the superman’s nephew.

As always you look great on your avatar, huge arms. are they natural?