[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Gaius Octavius wrote:
So how big do calves have to be to be considered big?
If you have to ask…[/quote]
Just don’t have a frame of reference man. I hear people talk about arm size all the time but I’ve never heard anyone say" man, my calves measure X now, they’re really getting huge!".
I have 45cm/17.5 inch calves and I worked them today for like the second time ever. So I guess I was just curious.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Gaius Octavius wrote:
So how big do calves have to be to be considered big?
If you have to ask…
Just don’t have a frame of reference man. I hear people talk about arm size all the time but I’ve never heard anyone say" man, my calves measure X now, they’re really getting huge!".
I have 45cm/17.5 inch calves and I worked them today for like the second time ever. So I guess I was just curious.[/quote]
Your biceps are supposedly supposed to match your bicep measurements. So go from there.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
Gaius Octavius wrote:
So how big do calves have to be to be considered big?
If you have to ask…
Just don’t have a frame of reference man. I hear people talk about arm size all the time but I’ve never heard anyone say" man, my calves measure X now, they’re really getting huge!".
I have 45cm/17.5 inch calves and I worked them today for like the second time ever. So I guess I was just curious.[/quote]
It depends on how they look compared to the rest of you. 17" calves are not “small” for someone who may be 200lbs or less. They are TINY on someone who is pushing 300lbs.
I think if you are happy you are #2… you need to squat more.
#1 all the way…
[quote]mallen5 wrote:
Quads and glutes are more important to me than calves. Calves are for show. [/quote]
I realize everyone has there own interests and reasons for traing but I think anyone who cares more about there “glutes” than there calves has there priorities out of order.Unless you care more about your glutes so you can squat more or deadlift more then that makes sense, otherwise fuck glutes.
I think many of you are misunderstanding the point of this thread. The idea is to choose the genetics, not which “after” picture you prefer.
To me, calf training sucks, and my calves are average. In that case, I choose #2.
Prof. X, you mentioned #2 looks retarded, while a bit later you lamented your poor calf size despite great effort spent trying to build them. Sure you may think #2 looks retarded, but if you chose #2, then you could just work on thighs.
big calves ftw
what about high calf insertions
versus high bicep insertions?
[quote]LS87 wrote:
big calves ftw
what about high calf insertions
versus high bicep insertions?[/quote]
I have both.I use to do tons of reverse grip curls thinking I was gonna make my biceps longer then read on here you cant, basically you get what you get.
Are those morphs of Mentzer’s legs? They look familiar.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Are those morphs of Mentzer’s legs? They look familiar.[/quote]
I Photoshopped them from this pic I found on a Google search. No name was credited. Dude has great legs. Anyone have a clue who he is?
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Are those morphs of Mentzer’s legs? They look familiar.
I Photoshopped them from this pic I found on a Google search. No name was credited. Dude has great legs. Anyone have a clue who he is?[/quote]
Good ol’ Erik Fankhouser.
‘House’ always had big calves. Even said that training them, and getting a pump, caused him pain. Crazy stuff…
S
