Nobody thinks of Zoidberg!
3 Likes
Even if we were to assume they are reliable (not saying that is the case), my observation is that it is still pretty good. Sure, someone with 9" wrists and 15" ankles will have a calculator that says they can be bigger than someone with ~7" wrists and ~12" ankles (me, about average), but the Casey Butt calculator still says I could have these measurements.
That is at 10% bodyfat, and assuming natty. An individual that achieves this is a beast, and will look awesome IMO.
Even moving to someone with below average wrists and ankles (6 and 10") could achieve this:
With the small joints and 10% BF, this will look awesome. Iāll say that I donāt think Iāve ever seen these proportions IRL. A 16.5" arm doesnāt sound huge, but at 10% BF it looks muscular, and with a 6" wrist it will look even bigger.
Agreed. Most people lie about their arm size including influencers / actors. Iām sure they also tape while pumped and give generosity to the slack in the tape.
People that do have larger arms than that are generally obese even if yoked obese or very tall. If youāre average height or even short, like me, then that measurement is huge.
2 Likes
I prefer Roidberg.
4 Likes
Yeah, it isnāt very far off of Frank Zaneās arms who won 3 Mr. Olympia titles IIRC. He also had small wrists and ankles. He was under 10% BF, probably around 6% back then. If I ever get close to Zaneās physique, Iāll declare victory, and that is with wrists that are about an inch larger, and ankles about 2" larger.
1 Like
Hereās a well known predictor: People born in a educated society will have an IQ of 100. 100 IQ is the mean (average). The difference is that the IQ formula includes variation. 15 points is one standard deviation. IQ of the population forms a bell curve.
The wrist size predictor has variation within it as well. At best it is a predictor of the average. Both sides of that average forms a bell curve.
Donāt sweat the wrist predictor. Sweat is for the weights.
5 Likes
Very true. And the data set they used to develop the formula may not actually represent an average set of the general population - skewing the results even further.
I doubt there is enough end to end data out there on every possible bone size going from tiny to jacked to form a representative set.
Youāre definitely not small! You look great, and that makes more sense now. I think we were kinda getting at the same thing: measuring your wrists when youāre skinny isnāt even going to tell you your wrist size after you growā¦ much less how large you can grow.
1 Like
Well I am just stoked about this. I can put on another 70lbs of muscle! How terrifying is that? Then I could be Chicken BIG! 
Bring on the food!
3 Likes
Ha! Obviously we just havenāt been doing things optimally!
1 Like
The one I used (Casey Butt model), seems to use good to great genetics as the prediction. It has for me, 5ā10", 7" wrist, 12" ankle being natural, 10% body fat and being able to get these measurements:
IDK, that seems pretty good to me, given the low body fat and no PEDs. I think genetic elites could do better, but I donāt think average will achieve these stats.
Uhā¦ that chest and thigh canāt be right. Good lord those dimensions with low BF would be insane.
1 Like
Those calves are to die for. Calves are a genetic gift, or they are not.
1 Like
Chest seemed close, but I have no idea about thighs. I never measured, and if I did, Iād be most interested in the circumference about 6" above the knee.
(Iāll be unable to respond until the 14th)
1 Like
Avg male thighs are around 22". Above 25" is considered body builder territory. Jay Cutler for example is listed as having between 30-33" thighs. Heās about 5ā9-10". Obviously, he is top echelon of body building, genetics, and PED use.
I pulled up Tom Platzās stats. Kinda surprised if accurate.
Iād think his were 40". Proportions matter a lot, and a 30" waist does a lot for a physiqueās proportions.
1 Like
Exactly why I thought the 31" thigh measurement was way too big for a goal even for elite natural. Same for chest.
1 Like
I kinda think something is off with Jay and Tomās measurements. Maybe they are lower thigh measurements? IDK, Iāve measured my thighs when I was squatting a lot, but measured them more like 12" from the knee. I was 27-28". My thighs were only like 24" at mid thigh, and probably like 22" at 2" above the knee.
Both measurements would be excellent at my height, and 10% body fat. Iād say they are excellent even if going hard on PEDs for several years. A 52" chest is insane! I think the best Iāve gotten is 44-45", but I was no wear near 10% body fat.
TBH, I donāt think even if I went hard on PEDs, that I could match the table of measurements it spit out for me. The arm measurement would probably be the easiest, and the calf the hardest (with chest being close behind).
1 Like
I believe I must have been off on my ankle measurement. It was a crude measurement done at work using my hands and then measuring with a ruler. I must not have 12" ankles haha. The list @BlueCollarTr8n posted has most of these guys at 10" ankles or less. That probably explains the thigh and calf measurements being crazy for me haha. My wrist measurements correct though.
1 Like