How long does it take to grow arms by 1 inch?

[NuttingToIt]

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?

[Shiboopi]

I think it was said that 20lbs of lean muscle = 1 inch in arms, but I dunno if that was a fallacy or not.

[Ricco]

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?

6 months as your a new lifter. 1 year if you weren't is a good goal

but your never guna get a propper answer as it is how long is a peice of string question tbh

[alkell]

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).

[NuttingToIt]

ok thanks, just wanted a rough time frame, so i can work towards that goal. i'l try get there in another 4 months..... thats when my current gym membership runs out...

[ITHURTZ]

Jan 2003 14" 160lbs
Jan 2004 16" 205lbs
Jan 2005 17" 209lbs
Jan 2006 17.5 215lbs
Jan 2007 18" 230lbs

Thats my growth schedule

[7Forty7]

I think it was said that 20lbs of lean muscle = 1 inch in arms, but I dunno if that was a fallacy or not.

Who comes up with these facts and figures?!? Somebody out there gained 20lbs of lean mass, and an inch on their arms, and suddenly this is the golden ratio for everyone.

[rockhuddy]

Probably around 6 months for you as a new lifter.

[taipan_342]

Yeah i like that theory lol, id be a 260lb bodybuilder with 18"

[Ross PK]

Everyone's different.

[DEVzzz]

If you start with fatceps like I did, 2 years later there will be no noticeable difference with the measuring tape, but the mirror will tell the real story.

[akaMarko]

Yeah i like that theory lol, id be a 260lb bodybuilder with 18"

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.

[user23960508710788]

well it gets tougher as you go along, 13-14 will be a piece of cake, 16-17 will be tough 17-18 will take a lot more work etc.

[Ricco]

Probably around 6 months for you as a new lifter.

Is there an echo in this thread?

[New_Kid]

Jan 2003 14" 160lbs
Jan 2004 16" 205lbs
Jan 2005 17" 209lbs
Jan 2006 17.5 215lbs
Jan 2007 18" 230lbs

Thats my growth schedule

Overall, that's roughly 18 lbs of bodyweight per inch, so it sounds pretty close to the rule of thumb 20 lbs of bodymass per inch on arms...

[NuttingToIt]

Jan 2003 14" 160lbs
Jan 2004 16" 205lbs
Jan 2005 17" 209lbs
Jan 2006 17.5 215lbs
Jan 2007 18" 230lbs

Thats my growth schedule

good progress.

did you eat that 15y.o kid in your profile? haha

[MoGeaYuglay]

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.

muscle is more dense than fat, a lb of muscle takes up less volume/space than a lb of fat.

muscle does not weigh more than fat and vice versa.

[Bruzey]

I think the general idea is if you take the same volume of muscle and fat, the muscle will weigh more. Therefore, per cubic inch, muscle weighs more than fat.

Am I right or wrong?

[the_clamp_down]

I think it was said that 20lbs of lean muscle = 1 inch in arms, but I dunno if that was a fallacy or not.

thats not necessarily true, as alot of factors tie into it.

Arnold says in one of his books--that it is 10 lbs/for 1 inch.

i say who cares. Your arms will be proportionate to your body. Gain weight- gain arms.

[bizzlewood]

Everyone's different.

I second that

[DoubleWide]

I think the general idea is if you take the same volume of muscle and fat, the muscle will weigh more. Therefore, per cubic inch, muscle weighs more than fat.

Am I right or wrong?

You're right.

[WRMUSCLE]

I think it was said that 20lbs of lean muscle = 1 inch in arms, but I dunno if that was a fallacy or not.

I believe this is right because at 151 lbs I had 14 biceps now at 168 its 15

[bigluke39]

There is no such rule of thumb. A guy 5'4" may be able to pack on 8 lbs and gain an inch, while someone 6'6" may need 20 lbs. And even that is not a rule of thumb, as some may work arm only, while the next guy never works them.

I think it was said that 20lbs of lean muscle = 1 inch in arms, but I dunno if that was a fallacy or not.

[Bluerain]

I think the general idea is if you take the same volume of muscle and fat, the muscle will weigh more. Therefore, per cubic inch, muscle weighs more than fat.

Am I right or wrong?

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

[ironman1964bc]

It all depends on how much weight you can gain. Maybe 10-15lbs will give you an extra inch on your arms if you train right. I see another poster in this thread gained 4 inches on his arms but it took a 70lb weight gain. That is a good scale to go by.

[Bruzey]

Ah, I see what you meant bluerain.

Reminds me of the ol' question;

What weights more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?

[Guardian]

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?

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.

[TheStuddMuffin]

muscle is more dense than fat, a lb of muscle takes up less volume/space than a lb of fat.

muscle does not weigh more than fat and vice versa.

You're wrong.

If something is more dense than something else than that something would weigh more than that something else.

Density is basically what weight is.

[Guardian]

You're wrong.

If something is more dense than something else than that something would weigh more than that something else.

Density is basically what weight is.

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.

[bigphishy56]

You're wrong.

If something is more dense than something else than that something would weigh more than that something else.

Density is basically what weight is.

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.