I only been lifting for around 2 months. I now got 13inch arms.
Just wondering how long i should expect to take to gain 1 inch on my arms with a balanced program.
I know everyone is different just wondering realistically what my goal should be?
|
-
02-23-2007, 05:08 PM #1
-
02-23-2007, 05:35 PM #2
-
02-23-2007, 05:36 PM #3
-
02-23-2007, 06:06 PM #4
- Join Date: Oct 2006
- Location: Launceston, Tassie, Australia
- Age: 51
- Posts: 6,097
- Rep Power: 10662
The key is to make sure you track your progress, so keep a journal or diary and make note of your arm measurements (legs, forearms, etc) so you have something to compare back to.
The other key is to ensure you are consistent with measuring, IE flexed or not flexed, if flexed take note of where your forearm is in relation to your upper arm (IE 90 degress or as far as you can go in moving the forearm to the bicep). Dont neglect your triceps.
From 30 November 2006 to 17 February 2007 I put 1.5 centimetres (a bit more than half an inch) on my upper arms (I am a beginner, only been lifting weights for around 4 months).Taking the "less is more" approach to cardio...
-
-
02-23-2007, 09:08 PM #5
-
02-23-2007, 09:12 PM #6
-
02-23-2007, 09:52 PM #7
-
02-23-2007, 11:48 PM #8
- Join Date: Feb 2005
- Location: Wisconsin, United States
- Age: 37
- Posts: 7,479
- Rep Power: 3966
Probably around 6 months for you as a new lifter.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
-
-
02-24-2007, 12:20 AM #9
-
02-24-2007, 05:56 AM #10
-
02-24-2007, 07:06 AM #11
-
02-24-2007, 07:07 AM #12
- Join Date: Apr 2003
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Age: 55
- Posts: 1,073
- Rep Power: 707
According to your profile you are 6'2 , 200lbs @ 18% BF and you have 15" arms. If you got to 260lb and maintained the bf% then the equation would be correct to have 18" arms.
If however you mananged to get to 230-240lbs @ around 10% bf then you could easily have 18"+ arms because muscle weighs more than fat.
Not flaming you bud, just saying.
-
-
02-24-2007, 07:30 AM #13
-
02-24-2007, 06:22 PM #14
-
02-24-2007, 07:13 PM #15
-
02-24-2007, 07:25 PM #16
-
-
02-24-2007, 08:52 PM #17
-
02-24-2007, 09:04 PM #18
-
02-24-2007, 10:15 PM #19
-
02-24-2007, 10:32 PM #20
-
-
02-25-2007, 05:37 AM #21
-
02-25-2007, 06:01 AM #22
-
02-25-2007, 07:42 AM #23
-
02-25-2007, 08:38 AM #24
This is true when talking about muscle vs fat "per cubic inch " (Any space for that matter) cause it's more dense .
When speaking about weight iself muscle doesn't weigh more then fat or anything.. A POUND IS A POUND no matter which way u slice it.
It's just about wording it correctly and most seem to state muscle weighs more then fat (Which it doesn't) . Now if they word it like u did there wouldn't be so much confusion among the newbie's.
Blue
-
-
02-25-2007, 08:51 AM #25
-
02-25-2007, 09:01 AM #26
-
02-25-2007, 09:06 AM #27
At your arm measurement and level of training you should be able to add an inch within 3 months if everything else is done correctly.
Some of these other guys neeed to get a clue, your a begginer with 13 inch arms, an inch shouldnt take you very long as long as your eating enough and training right. There is no rule for arms, some gain faster then others, some gain more while the rest of their body gains little. A general guide is for every 10 pounds of bodyweight you have you should have an inch in the arms. This seems to level off once you reach about 180 pounds as most people have a hard time reaching and exceeding 18 inches. My arm measurement by this rule just about exactly fits my bodyweight. From this general guide your arms are actually smaller which to me means it should be even easier for you to add that inch. An inch for each 10 pounds is also seen as a good ideal for a greek like body.
-
02-25-2007, 09:15 AM #28
-
-
02-25-2007, 09:48 AM #29
Density is not what weight is, weight is the measure of gravitaitonal pull a certain amount of mass is, it disregards volume and density.
Muscle is heavier then fat is volume is held constant meaning if you had equal squae cubic centimeters of both fat and muscle the muscle will weigh more since it has more mass within the same volume.
-
02-25-2007, 10:01 AM #30
density is the amount of mass per unit of volume. Weight is the measure of the earth's gravitational pull on a particular mass (which is the measure of how much "stuff" is there, not a weight measurement). Density is not "basically weight".
If two things are equal volume and one is denser, the denser object will weigh more. Stating that "muscle weights more than fat" is to arbitrary since it does not imply any standard of comparison (i think that is what he was getting at).
It's probably ok to phrase it as "muscle weights more than fat", since most people will know what you are talking about.
Bookmarks