'truth about arm measurements' good article.

[GOD.]

i found this on a thread from a good 5 years ago, though it might intrest some.

The Truth About Bodybuilding Arm Measurements
by Charles Poliquin

When Johnny Weismuller-the first screen Tarzan-first swung across movie theater screens, he was considered to be very muscular. Kids all over the country beat their chests, bellowed their Tarzan cries, and dreamed of building up their arms to look like the apeman's. Too bad his upper arm measurement was a paltry 15 inches in circumference.
Personally, I remember as a kid watching Charles Bronson in a movie called "Cold Sweat." He wore a T-shirt that would've even been tight on Woody Allen, and I remember being awestruck by his muscularity. Now, when I think about that movie, I realize that his arms were probably about 11 or 12 inches around. Nowadays, even six-year-old kids know that a big arm has to be at least 20 inches.
Bodybuilders have always been obsessed with arm size, but even the general public seems to recognize an impressive pair of guns when they see them, and maybe it has something to do with those old movies that we used to watch. I mean, most people wouldn't recognize a well-developed chest or pair of legs if they were on anyone else other than Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch, or the girl next-door who tanned in that little bikini that we could just barely see if we crawled under the hedges and peeked through the little knothole in the fence.
Somehow, arm measurement commands respect. I remember meeting with the Mighty Ducks hockey team and, although some of the players were attentive to what I had to say, others obviously weren't impressed. It wasn't until one of them asked me to show my biceps that they all started listening. After that, I attained immediate status among them, and many of them practically asked me to move in with them and/or date their sisters.
Maybe it's because of the obsession with arm measurement that so many bodybuilders flat-out lie about them. Most arm measurements in the bodybuilding world are so exaggerated, they make Wilt Chamberlain's claims about his sexual conquests seem kind of tame.
If you look at most Weider publications, 20-inch arms are within the grasp of just about anybody who can afford his supplements, and 22-inch arms are about a dime a dozen in the IFBB pro circuit. However, take it from me-this is far from the truth. As the old saying goes, don't piss on my leg and tell me that it's raining.
One of the first authors to tell the truth about bodybuilding measurements was Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones. He published the real arm measurements of elite bodybuilders like Casey Viator, Mike Mentzer, Sergio Oliva, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In "The Nautilus Book, Volume II," Jones recounts that the most muscular arm he ever measured was that of Sergio Oliva. At 20-1/8 inches, Sergio's arms literally dwarfed his head, making him appear the target of some weird, voodoo curse. However, the book was published in the early '70s. Since then, the average bodybuilder has "evolved" considerably, mostly thanks to improvements in nutrition, training methodologies, and-how shall I put it?-"recuperative" methods which come in little bottles that are sold by guys in trench coats and named Guido.
In general, improvements in arm measurement are related to gains in lean body mass. A good rule of thumb is that for every inch you want to gain on your arms, you need to gain roughly 15 pounds of equally distributed body mass. In other words, to make significant improvements in your arms, you have to gain mass all over your entire body.
The human body is a finely-tuned machine that will only allow for a certain amount of asymmetry. Therefore, if you devote your training energies solely to building big arms, you'd eventually reach a point of total stagnation because you weren't training your legs. In other words, no wheels, no wings! Furthermore, if arms grew without some sort of concurrent development in the legs, most bodybuilders would have to walk on their hands.
There are some interesting correlations and relationships when you compare bodybuilders' heights, weights, and arm measurements. For instance, a 5'7" tall bodybuilder who weighs 214 pounds and has a bodyfat percentage of 8% should have arm development between 19-1/4 and 19-5/8 inches. Yet many of these same individuals will claim to have arms that are over 21 inches, a measurement that's quite rare, regardless of height and bodyweight.
I've personally measured the arms of the hulking individuals listed below. All of them had placed in the top eight of a recent show, and the measurements were taken about ten days after the show, presumably when they were at their biggest from all of the post-competition carbs ingested.
Bodybuilder A
Height: 6'0"
Weight: 286 pounds
Cold arm measurement: 20.62"
Bodybuilder B
Height: 5'3"
Weight: 228 pounds
Cold arm measurement: 20.25"
Bodybuilder C
Height: 5'7"
Weight: 214 pounds
Cold arm measurement: 19.62"
Bodybuilder D
Height: 5'11"
Weight: 258 pounds
Cold arm measurement: 18.9"
If I published pictures of these bodybuilders, you'd see that Bodybuilders A and D were famous for their leg development, while Bodybuilders B and C sported larger arms in relation to their lower bodies, which were still quite well-developed by any standard.
Bodybuilder B, though, had the highest ponderal index (weight/height), so his arms were enormous in comparison to all of the other bodybuilders. To put things in perspective, Bodybuilder A would need to weigh about 310 pounds to match the ponderal index of Bodybuilder B.
Let's say that you weigh 176 pounds and stand 5'8" tall. Assuming that your bodyfat is below 10%, your arm should measure roughly 16 inches. If you've calculated it to be 20 inches, you've probably done one of the following things:
• Added the sum of both arm measurements.
• Added your age to your arm measurement.
• Suffered from delusions of grandeur and refused to see that your arm is really an inflated piece of licorice.
If you've done none of these things and still insist that your guns are 20 inches or bigger, you'd better start walking on your hands-your symmetry is bizarre, at best, and such big arms must create an enormous amount of stress on your traps and spine!
Anyhow, the Olympian who keeps bragging about his arms having been over 22 inches (in fact, I think that he may have won an Olympia, or maybe two, or seven) is, in fact, pissing mighty rivers down your leg and insisting that the mother of all rain storms is upon you. At 6'1" tall, this Olympian would have had to weigh about 308 pounds for his arms to be even close to 22 inches around. However, his competition weight was roughly 235 pounds. Of course, maybe his bodyfat was minus 15%...

Measurement Goals
When you first started lifting weights, no doubt your initial goal was to fill up the sleeve of your T-shirt so that when the wind blew, all of that flapping cloth wouldn't inadvertently signal fighter planes to take off. As you grew more experienced, you probably set some concrete goals for yourself.
Traditionally, there have been three different methods for estimating arm growth potential. The first two are wrong:
1) Your arm should be a certain multiple of your wrist measurement (I can't remember what the exact multiple or factor is anymore, but trust me, it doesn't matter). This is what antiquated authors like Stuart McRobert recommend. In practice, it just doesn't work.
For example, if I applied this theory to my own arm development, my arms should never have grown to their present size. Obviously, they did. But it shouldn't have been possible, given my wrist measurement. If I'd taken this advice seriously, I would've psychologically sabotaged my arm development. If I believed that it was limited to a certain amount, based on this silly equation, my arms probably would've stopped growing long ago.
2) Your arms should be a certain number of inches above and beyond your wrist measurement. This advice has long been propagated by bodybuilding authors like Bradley J. Steiner who, with the exception of "my house is on fire," really hasn't said anything new since 1968.
Some authors would say that a realistic goal of arm development is ten inches over your wrist measurement. Again, had I taken this advice to heart, it would've given me an arm measurement of 17 inches, again shortchanging my potential.
3) Your arm size should reflect your ponderal index (how much muscle mass you have for your height). In my opinion, this is the best approach, as it takes into account that arm size is a byproduct of overall mass gains.
Genetic factors play a big part in arm potential. If you come from a family whose members all resemble comedian JJ Walker, chances are that you'll never really have arms that serve as shade for small forest animals.
Generally, three genetic factors ultimately determine arm growth potential:
1) Number of muscle cells
A Canadian study of elite bodybuilders revealed that those bodybuilders with the greatest amount of cells are, in fact, the ones who normally achieve the largest cross-sections of muscle.
2) Length of muscle belly
The lower a muscle inserts (the closer to the elbow joint), the greater its potential for hypertrophy. Just look at Larry Scott's biceps compared to Franco Columbo's biceps. Larry's have a very low insertion point, which gave him great potential for arm growth. Columbo's insertion was relatively high, but his lats inserted very low-and that, of course, was his most famous bodypart.
3) Hormonal make-up
This is obviously the easiest one to circumvent, and that's why steroids are so popular with the genetically challenged.
Regardless of your particular genetic limitation (if you have any), don't simply resign yourself to fate and accept that you'll never have big arms. Anyone, with the proper knowledge in hand, can expect to gain a significant amount of overall muscle-and that, of course, will translate into arm mass.

[GOD.]

How to Take Measurements

If you're really going to get serious about developing your arms, you should periodically take measurements to allow you to gauge your progress. For instance, you should definitely take some measurements before you begin a serious arm-training program.
To be accurate, always take your arm measurements "cold" or, in other words, in an unpumped condition. Furthermore, always measure your arms at the same time of day, and in the same state of hydration. It may be initially damaging to your ego, but perhaps that will give you the added impetus to train harder.
The most accurate measurements are done with a flexible steel tape attached to a tension measuring device. Kinesiologists call this a Gullick tape. It allows you to always take measurements with the same degree of tension on the tape, ensuring that your measurements are accurate and not influenced by wishful thinking.
It's also a good idea to let someone else take the measurement for you so that you're not tempted to stick a finger under the tape.
To take accurate measurements, position your upper arm so that it's parallel to the floor, with the elbow pointing directly ahead of you. Measure the arm at its greatest girth, which should be at the peak of the biceps. Make sure that the "circle" formed by the tape is perpendicular to the ground.
The most accurate measurements are, of course, taken by kinesiologists who specialize in kinanthropometry. But if you're conscientious about how you do it, you can get very accurate measurements. As far as the frequency of measurements, some bodybuilders are so compulsive that they measure their arms every morning. Take my word for it, that method will only lead to anxiety. Arms don't grow on a linear basis-rather, they grow in spurts.
I remember having a conversation with a bodybuilder who was obsessed with improving his pitiful calves which, truthfully, would've looked more at home on a pigeon. As a result, he measured them five times a day. He asked me if I thought that he was too compulsive. I assured him that he wasn't but, at the same time, I cautiously suggested that he double his intake of St. John's Wort and invest in a straitjacket. Similarly, measuring your arms every day will only drive you and everyone around you insane.
From an empirical standpoint, increases in arm size are correlated to progressions in arm-training poundages. Therefore, I recommend that you only take measurements 48 hours after hitting a previously determined arm-training poundage goal. Or, have measurements taken every six weeks by a kinesiologist familiar with kinanthropometry.
Although measurements may seem like an exercise in vanity, they provide a good yardstick (or, in this case, tape measure) of progress and may help spur on your training.

[John Prophet]

definitely when they say that guys like Franko Columbo had 20" arms its utter silliness

I have taped several arms in our gym. even for "big guys" its generally 17.5" (its not really a hardcore roid type gym)

one guy does have about a 20" gun...big dude about 6'5"

[GOD.]

yeah, i read that arnold had a 22 inch arm, then i read else where that ronnie also had 22 so i figured something was off...

[britonarius]

Many years ago there was an American wrestler [ used the song bad to the bone ] who claimed 28 inch arms, they did look big but not that big! Guess monster biceps is what everyone wants. Gives us something in common with lobsters as they want giant claws. Guess thats a lobster bicep. But interesting thread.Thanks be to God for the thread.

[NotTooLate]

Thanks be to God for the thread.

LOL

[CardiMuscles]

I think a more accurate measure would be to produce stats based on the weight lifted, for instance

Bodybuilder A: 20.5 inch quads is able to squat 420lbs
Bodybuilder B: 35 inch quads is able to squat 1,115lbs

On the surface Bodybuilder B sounds the more impressive, and when you average it

Bodybuilder A is able to squat 20.49lbs per inch of quad muscle
Bodybuilder B is able to squat 31.86lbs per inch of quad muscle

Bodybuilder B is indeed the stronger (by 55%) whereas if you compared by just the squat measurement, he would be 3 times stronger.

[jgreystoke]

I'd love to see anyone perform a parallel squat with 1100lbs raw. The silly suits and wraps and briefs add up to 400lbs.........

To their credit, bodybuilders almost always bench and squat raw, and the numbers of the biggest strongest guys are very creditable compared to what powerlifters are capable of when they lose the assistance gear.

[GOD.]

I think a more accurate measure would be to produce stats based on the weight lifted, for instance

Bodybuilder A: 20.5 inch quads is able to squat 420lbs
Bodybuilder B: 35 inch quads is able to squat 1,115lbs

On the surface Bodybuilder B sounds the more impressive, and when you average it

Bodybuilder A is able to squat 20.49lbs per inch of quad muscle
Bodybuilder B is able to squat 31.86lbs per inch of quad muscle

Bodybuilder B is indeed the stronger (by 55%) whereas if you compared by just the squat measurement, he would be 3 times stronger.

no, size is not comparable to power, that wouldn't work.

[StartinOver-68]

Oh no !!! I have a 17" arm at 5'8",195lbs. Does that mean I'm done growing at my young age ???

Seriously, genetics are the key factor in anyone's "normal" bodybuilding development.

[thomasale]

I never work biceps or triceps alone...the only work they get is in conjuntion with compound movements. I think that it works. Now granted my "guns" are only 16 ". right now I am more interested in my core from knees to chest.

[rocketman44]

The key point in the article was:

"In general, improvements in arm measurement are related to gains in lean body mass. A good rule of thumb is that for every inch you want to gain on your arms, you need to gain roughly 15 pounds of equally distributed body mass. In other words, to make significant improvements in your arms, you have to gain mass all over your entire body."

This might be a good time to emphasize the role of triceps development in arm size. While big biceps may be the more glamorous of the results, most arm size is usually contained in the triceps area.

[Tyrbolift]

When people see your big but lean arms, they usually have more respect and treat you better. Not good or bad, they just do. Number size isn't as important as lean mass, either. A cut 16 is just as good as a fatceps 19.

[John Prophet]

yep...for whatever reason, in todays world cuts FAR outweigh size or strength

thanks Brad

[batteryrequired]

Funny, I get comments on my arms all the time in the summer months when I break out the sleeveless T's. Having 17's right now is alright...but boy do I feel pretty inadequate when I am at the Arnold Classic Expo....lol. Some boys sportin some pretty big guns there!

[clive]

When people see your big but lean arms, they usually have more respect and treat you better. Not good or bad, they just do. Number size isn't as important as lean mass, either. A cut 16 is just as good as a fatceps 19.

In the real world outside bodybuilding 17 inch arms on a lean guy are pretty impressive to your average person who doesn't work out.
I get noticed when mine are on show! But I would hate to feel I intimidate anyone by my look.
I hope people are thinking, there's a guy that looks strong, fit and healthy, when they see me.

[therealwebguru]

In the real world outside bodybuilding 17 inch arms on a lean guy are pretty impressive to your average person who doesn't work out.
I get noticed when mine are on show! But I would hate to feel I intimidate anyone by my look.
I hope people are thinking, there's a guy that looks strong, fit and healthy, when they see me.

Wait are you saying you are 5'9" and 171lbs with 17 inch arms?

[Kraken]

The average arm size is said to be 13 inches. I TRY to keep this in mind, but bottom line is, when you surround yourself by people who are much larger, and always striving for more than what they already have, it has very little impact on me. I want to look big to OTHER LIFTERS.

A 17 inch, lean, cold arm is impressive. As for "natural", well, I have been around the block too many times, I'll keep that to myself.

[acrawlingchaos]

Love these old bumps

A 17 inch, lean, cold arm is impressive. As for "natural", well, I have been around the block too many times, I'll keep that to myself.

The bolded is an excellent idea, because honestly, you have no f*cking clue.

[soulfly911]

Love these old bumps

The bolded is an excellent idea, because honestly, you have no f*cking clue.

I'll second that.

[induced_drag]

I'll second that.

Third!




What would I know?....my arms are lagging

[Kraken]

I sense some defensiveness...

[induced_drag]

I sense some defensiveness...

It is a shame that people set their goals so low....and undermine others by making insinuations.

I mean come on... I am only 5'9 and have over 17" arms cold. (over 18" pumped). And I am not very big. I consider myself developed....but far from 'big'. My arms do respond well to training though...along with my back. Now if I ever want 20's....by all means it would take some supplementation. While 17" is developed, it is not by any means unreachable naturally. Now all the 6+ foot guys 200+...get over it... 17" is NOTHING.


peak of my bulk I broke 18" which was a 3/8" gain in 5 months





They are not 'fat ceps' either!

[Kraken]

It is a shame that people set their goals so low....and undermine others by making insinuations.

I mean come on... I am only 5'9 and have over 17" arms cold. (over 18" pumped). And I am not very big. I consider myself developed....but far from 'big'. My arms do respond well to training though...along with my back. Now if I ever want 20's....by all means it would take some supplementation. While 17" is developed, it is not by any means unreachable naturally. Now all the 6+ foot guys 200+...get over it... 17" is NOTHING.


peak of my bulk I broke 18" which was a 3/8" gain in 5 months





They are not 'fat ceps' either!

My only point was that it's not as common in the natural realm as many seem to believe. IMO, it's like saying good genetics are a dime a dozen. Now, you come here, and notice the pics. This is usually a collective of folks with decent gentics, but make up a minority of lifters. We see 17 inch arms on here a lot, but the group of folks here are not your averag lifter. This is what I mean.

Regardless of the situation, I would never undermine someone's hard work. It's hard work, no matter what genetics or supps are involved. We all put in the work

[2nd_chance]

I cab't believe that GOD was banned on this site

[drudixon]

I cab't believe that GOD was banned on this site

Was thinking the same thing...

[ibidu1]

Why would they say someone who is taller, has it easier with arm development. I believe it is the other way around. Someone shorter in height usually would have shorter arms. Therefore the arms would be bigger

[mslman71]

Who gives a sh*t? Whatever they are, they aren't big enough, but as long as they are getting bigger it's all good.

[Lishnik]

I found a list showing the measurements of the Mr. America winners from 1939 to 1981 which was quite intersting. The bicep size of the winners ranged from 15.5 to 18 inches from 1939 to 1960. The outliers for that time period was one guy with 15.5 and one guy with 18 inch arms. The average is approximately 17 to 17 1/4 inches. Arm size jumps to 19 inches in 1965 which looks like when bike riding became popular.

Amazing that we have so many naturals on this site on the back nine of their lives with arms as big or biggger than Mr. America winners who were for the most part in the prime of their manhood.

http://www.musclememory.com/articles/MrAsizes.html

[acrawlingchaos]

I sense some defensiveness...

Suggesting somebody acquired all their gains by means of AAS is downright bullsh*t. Furthermore, if someone DID use anabolics.... who the f*ck are you to judge? To each their own. You come off as a patronizing prick, because let me tell you.... you aren't better than anyone else because you are natural.

As far as being defensive , another baseless accusation. I congratulate you on your outstanding *******ry.