How big are your arms?

[InflatableBuddha]

Are we talking inches in circumfrence here? I don't have a good measuring tape that will go around, only a heavy duty construction one, so I'll go ahead and ballpark at 3 inches diameter, so to get circumference I'll do pi x 3 which gives me 9.42 inches, fear me!

Well I may not win against anybody at an arm wrestling match, but if IT ever gets boring, I could make a good proctologist.

LOL...you got pwned by the skinny runners in here. Good thing you're going back to the gym!

 

[TallBill]

I disagree. Although to some extent, just about everyone cares about their appearance, many people are not obsessed about it to the extent of knowing the exact size of their arms. Years back when I used to think weight training and bodybuilding were synonymous, I cared about the size of my arms, my six pack, shoulder striations, etc. Once I discovered that training to be able to do stuff (rather than just looking like you could) was way more rewarding, the fine details of my muscle size became far less important. My training goals now are about fitness and whatever I look like when I achieve those goals is fine by me. 15" arms or 18" arms? Who cares, as long as I can do pull-ups, climb, deadlift, etc. Now, obviously, this doesn't mean I don't care about my appearance at all (e.g. I wouldn't want to bulk to 300lbs just to boost my deadlift or have 10" arms to run fast), but this is still worlds different than training solely for vanity's sake.

And for the record, my arms are big. In some ways, they are actually annoyingly big, as many people notice them right away and assume that all I do at the gym is bicep curls.

I kinda half agree with you, half with ninja. I kinda fall in between. I lift to be strong, as a nice side effect women enjoy a man in shape. Now I'm a bit more vain about it as I get attention, it's really hard not to. I do measure body parts every now and again because I like to see strength and size progress. That being said, my arms are a touch over 16.5"

I prefer measuring my legs though because I enjoy leg work more, they are about 27"

 

[Megatomic]

I disagree. Although to some extent, just about everyone cares about their appearance, many people are not obsessed about it to the extent of knowing the exact size of their arms. Years back when I used to think weight training and bodybuilding were synonymous, I cared about the size of my arms, my six pack, shoulder striations, etc. Once I discovered that training to be able to do stuff (rather than just looking like you could) was way more rewarding, the fine details of my muscle size became far less important. My training goals now are about fitness and whatever I look like when I achieve those goals is fine by me. 15" arms or 18" arms? Who cares, as long as I can do pull-ups, climb, deadlift, etc. Now, obviously, this doesn't mean I don't care about my appearance at all (e.g. I wouldn't want to bulk to 300lbs just to boost my deadlift or have 10" arms to run fast), but this is still worlds different than training solely for vanity's sake.

And for the record, my arms are big. In some ways, they are actually annoyingly big, as many people notice them right away and assume that all I do at the gym is bicep curls.

Well said. The vanity of the peacocks in the gym, huffing and puffing all the more loudly when women are around, posing in mirrors, etc... It's ridiculous.

 

[Red Dawn]

55 yrs 5'11" 195 lbs 17.5" I do a lot of isolation exercises for my arms, mostly because I enjoy them. If I didn't have a herniated disc in my back I'd probably do Squats, Deadlifts and such but I can't. I usually do Biceps when I do back exercises which include Pull Ups and Triceps when I bench.

I don't recommend what I do for the beginner, only for 55 yr old guys with herniated discs that have been lifting for years

 

[StageLeft]

I don't want to measure them because last time I did the number was not good. Let's just say they aren't 17", though.

 

[Deeko]

I disagree. Although to some extent, just about everyone cares about their appearance, many people are not obsessed about it to the extent of knowing the exact size of their arms. Years back when I used to think weight training and bodybuilding were synonymous, I cared about the size of my arms, my six pack, shoulder striations, etc. Once I discovered that training to be able to do stuff (rather than just looking like you could) was way more rewarding, the fine details of my muscle size became far less important. My training goals now are about fitness and whatever I look like when I achieve those goals is fine by me. 15" arms or 18" arms? Who cares, as long as I can do pull-ups, climb, deadlift, etc. Now, obviously, this doesn't mean I don't care about my appearance at all (e.g. I wouldn't want to bulk to 300lbs just to boost my deadlift or have 10" arms to run fast), but this is still worlds different than training solely for vanity's sake.

And for the record, my arms are big. In some ways, they are actually annoyingly big, as many people notice them right away and assume that all I do at the gym is bicep curls.

Measuring size difference can be a useful method of measuring your training, if anything, just to actually know whats happening with your body. Even if your ultimate goal is your appearance, if you're bulking & gaining weight, where is that weight going? Similarly when cutting - where are you losing weight from? These aren't necessarily bad things to know.

 

[ShreddedWheat]

Scared to measure now after so many injuries but used to be 17" at 5'8" @ 180 lbs Probably 15.5" now

 

[surfsatwerk]

Arm size isn't too terribly impressive. What about the guys that walk around on two tree trunks, it's insane.

 

[StageLeft]

Arm size isn't too terribly impressive. What about the guys that walk around on two tree trunks, it's insane.

He's strong but but also fat. In any case aesthetically very unappealing vs a leaner guy, at least to the ladies

 

[Deeko]

He looks like a pretty typical powerlifter. The guys I work out with laugh at me when I say my goal is to be as lean as possible within a weight class. If you ask me, my theory is sound....a 165lber with 7% bodyfat has more muscle, and therfore should be stronger, than one with 15% bodyfat. However, if I kept bulking and had that same amount of muscle (+ fat) at 181 or so, I would be able to lift more, which is what most of them are more concerned with.

 

[brikis98]

Measuring size difference can be a useful method of measuring your training, if anything, just to actually know whats happening with your body.

I know what is happening with my body by watching the numbers in my workouts: how much I'm squatting, how long a 400m run takes me, and so on.

Even if your ultimate goal is your appearance, if you're bulking & gaining weight, where is that weight going? Similarly when cutting - where are you losing weight from? These aren't necessarily bad things to know.

If you're bulking or cutting for the sake of appearance, then vanity is the goal and measuring body parts is just part of the territory. If you are bulking or cutting for performance (ie, bulking to get stronger or cutting to get faster), then I'd again argue that monitoring the numbers in your workouts tells you more about the success of your weight change than the exact size of various body parts. For example, if I'm cutting and see my barbell lifts decreasing, then it is very likely something is wrong (I'm cutting too fast, not getting enough protein, or not lifting enough). On the other hand, if I'm cutting and see my biceps have gotten 0.5" smaller, what the hell does that tell me? It might mean something is wrong as above, but it could also be that I lost water weight or fat from my arms. If I'm bulking and see that my thighs got 1" bigger, that might mean I got stronger, but until I try to squat, I won't know, so the size measurement is not all that useful.

Of course, I once again must point out that I'm not saying to ignore appearance metrics completely. You've got to keep things within reason. If you are cutting and your arms shrink 5", that IS a good sign that something is probably wrong. And there are cases where the body measurements are part of the "performance": for example, in sports with weight classes, your exact bodyweight and composition are obviously crucial.

 

[Deeko]

He's strong but but also fat. In any case aesthetically very unappealing vs a leaner guy, at least to the ladies

This guy is the top lifter at my gym...

 

[Deeko]

I know what is happening with my body by watching the numbers in my workouts: how much I'm squatting, how long a 400m run takes me, and so on.



If you're bulking or cutting for the sake of appearance, then vanity is the goal and measuring body parts is just part of the territory. If you are bulking or cutting for performance (ie, bulking to get stronger or cutting to get faster), then I'd again argue that monitoring the numbers in your workouts tells you more about the success of your weight change than the exact size of various body parts. For example, if I'm cutting and see my barbell lifts decreasing, then it is very likely something is wrong (I'm cutting too fast, not getting enough protein, or not lifting enough). On the other hand, if I'm cutting and see my biceps have gotten 0.5" smaller, what the hell does that tell me? It might mean something is wrong as above, but it could also be that I lost water weight or fat from my arms. If I'm bulking and see that my thighs got 1" bigger, that might mean I got stronger, but until I try to squat, I won't know, so the size measurement is not all that useful.

Of course, I once again must point out that I'm not saying to ignore appearance metrics completely. You've got to keep things within reason. If you are cutting and your arms shrink 5", that IS a good sign that something is probably wrong. And there are cases where the body measurements are part of the "performance": for example, in sports with weight classes, your exact bodyweight and composition are obviously crucial.

Meh, I disagree. Aesthetics aside, I still think its interesting to know these things. I'm not saying you should change your training program based on it, just that its interesting to see what's actually happening with your various muscle/body parts as you train.

 

[brikis98]

He looks like a pretty typical powerlifter. The guys I work out with laugh at me when I say my goal is to be as lean as possible within a weight class. If you ask me, my theory is sound....a 165lber with 7% bodyfat has more muscle, and therfore should be stronger, than one with 15% bodyfat. However, if I kept bulking and had that same amount of muscle (+ fat) at 181 or so, I would be able to lift more, which is what most of them are more concerned with.

My understanding was that with powerlifting, extra bodyweight is almost always helpful, even if it is fat. I've read comments from Andy Bolton that being heavier provides more leverage and extra weight in the belly helps with core stability for the squat and deadlift. Obviously, more muscle is preferable - especially when trying to make a certain weight class - but the super heavyweights gladly pack on extra fat too (just look at Bolton's stomach).

 

[Deeko]

My understanding was that with powerlifting, extra bodyweight is almost always helpful, even if it is fat. I've read comments from Andy Bolton that being heavier provides more leverage and extra weight in the belly helps with core stability for the squat and deadlift. Obviously, more muscle is preferable - especially when trying to make a certain weight class - but the super heavyweights gladly pack on extra fat too (just look at Bolton's stomach).

Yea, like I said - If I were to cut down to a lean 165 vs a not-so-lean 181, I would definitely lift more at 181. My contention is that a lean 165 is stronger than a fat 165 - and so on up the chain - and since I'm more interested in being competative (that's why I compete rather than just lifting in the gym) - I'd rather stay lean at a lower weight class than just keep bulking to attain the highest possible lift. Most powerlifters don't think they way, they have the bigger-stronger-better mentality.

 

[TallBill]

My understanding was that with powerlifting, extra bodyweight is almost always helpful, even if it is fat. I've read comments from Andy Bolton that being heavier provides more leverage and extra weight in the belly helps with core stability for the squat and deadlift. Obviously, more muscle is preferable - especially when trying to make a certain weight class - but the super heavyweights gladly pack on extra fat too (just look at Bolton's stomach).

That's true for heavyweights. There were a lot of low bodyfat lifters in the olympics in the lighter weight classes.

 

[surfsatwerk]

He's strong but but also fat. In any case aesthetically very unappealing vs a leaner guy, at least to the ladies

I would never think of that guy as fat. Big guys are big, you can't grow if you don't eat.

 

[StageLeft]

This guy is the top lifter at my gym...

Very impressive with that weight. I wouldn't want his physique, though (and I'm sure he wouldn't want mine).

The guys I work out with laugh at me when I say my goal is to be as lean as possible within a weight class.

Not sure why. No way in hell if you're trying to make a weight class replacing muscle with fat would give you a better lift performance. 7% is not call-the-hospital lean so your energy should still be fine. I'm pretty sure per above olympic lifters in lower classes are pretty lean.

I would never think of that guy as fat. Big guys are big, you can't grow if you don't eat.

He is fat. He has no definition anywhere at all and it's not just the picture. I bet his BF is way 20%. Despite large muscles he still has no definition and a freaking huge ass belly. And don't say it's abs

 

[gramboh]

There are lean superheavys, e.g. Konstantiovs @ 125kg/275# has defined abs and is _HUGE_ everywhere, he can also pull over 900# deadlift and do 55 kipping pull-ups, very impressive. There are some Russian oly lifters as well that are decently lean.

There is always a trade-off. Some women will prefer bigger guys (not fat, muscular) and others prefer ripped look. The one thing they generally don't like are skin and bones with a 6 pack (the guys you read about 5'10+, 140# and are scared to eat more to lose their ABZ).

 

[TallBill]

Hui Liao - Mens 69kg Gold Medalist

Jaehyouk Sa - Mens 77kg Gold Medalist

Lu Yong - Mens 85kg Gold Medalist

Just a few examples for the lower weight classes.

 

[surfsatwerk]

He is fat. He has no definition anywhere at all and it's not just the picture. I bet his BF is way 20%. Despite large muscles he still has no definition and a freaking huge ass belly. And don't say it's abs

I understand what you're saying, I just feel it is missing the big, lolpun, picture. If I were to call a marathoner a "shrimp" or "skinny" that would be stupid. Their bodies look very different than a normal person who just happens to have a very low bodyfat %.

Of what value is muscle definition to someone who wants to become as strong as possible. Of what value are big muscles to an endurance athlete. Personally I see the guys in the pictures above as having vastly different bodies than people that I consider fat, ie people who get on that Biggest Loser show.

 

[Deeko]

Not sure why. No way in hell if you're trying to make a weight class replacing muscle with fat would give you a better lift performance. 7% is not call-the-hospital lean so your energy should still be fine. I'm pretty sure per above olympic lifters in lower classes are pretty lean.

No, that's not the point. They aren't saying I should be a fat 165 - they say I should keep going up, and be a fatter 181 vs a lean 165. While you compete in a weight class, most of them (that I've encountered anyway) are more interested in just getting stronger, even if it means going up in weight classes.

 

[lifeobry]

Just a few examples for the lower weight classes.

Wow, beastly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xANS9NYZSqQ

 

[Red Squirrel]

LOL...you got pwned by the skinny runners in here. Good thing you're going back to the gym!

Hahah yeah, well I am built small in general so I doubt I will get much much bigger, but the gym will help I'm sure. I'm already bigger then what I used to be before I joined the first time.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wow, beastly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xANS9NYZSqQ

Woah that is impressive. That almost seems impossible. Do those guys have to be on any type of special diet just for the bones themselves, like high calcium diet or something? It's one thing to be strong, but how much can human bones handle without any special treatment? Assuming those are 45's and the bar is 45 that's 315 pounds with just the 6 ones! (he added more after)