General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Muscular Size vs Skeletal Size

Started by Richard · · Last activity · 4 posts · 305 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
25 April 2006
Last activity
25 April 2006
Original author
Richard
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
305
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Once frame size is determined via wrist or elbow measurements what would
    what provide similar benchmarks for muscle size on a bell curve, i.e., a
    wrist of 7.25, elbow width of such-such = bicep of 17" = freak, 16" =
    large, etc.

    As a natural and especially at age 47 desirous of not suffering long
    term injury, I'm not necessarily going for size for size sake but do
    wonder what benchmarks are along the road to "enough"?

    JMW might have an answer.
    Hanson, Cohen too.
    Friedes and Hobbes would of course but only from a core strength pull a
    boxcar with your balls perspective- I won't be able to squat 450 because
    my connective tissue would explode or give me tendonitis first.

    All are welcome to define: for a given frame size and height- when is
    enough enough?
    Here's my stats to get it rolling:
    Slimguide BF at 14%
    67.5 inch height
    weight 177
    neck 16.75
    bicep 15.25 (unpumped- pumped is 15.7)
    forearm 12.5
    chest 44
    waist (1" above naval) 34"
    thigh 22.5
    calf 15.5

  2. Quoted message said:

    JMW might have an answer.


    Hanson, Cohen too.
    Friedes and Hobbes would>

    Only I know.

  3. You left out the most important measurement of all darlin.

  4. "Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Once frame size is determined via wrist or elbow measurements what would
    what provide similar benchmarks for muscle size on a bell curve, i.e., a
    wrist of 7.25, elbow width of such-such = bicep of 17" = freak, 16" =
    large, etc.

    As a natural and especially at age 47 desirous of not suffering long
    term injury, I'm not necessarily going for size for size sake but do
    wonder what benchmarks are along the road to "enough"?

    JMW might have an answer.
    Hanson, Cohen too.
    Friedes and Hobbes would of course but only from a core strength pull a
    boxcar with your balls perspective- I won't be able to squat 450 because
    my connective tissue would explode or give me tendonitis first.

    All are welcome to define: for a given frame size and height- when is
    enough enough?
    Here's my stats to get it rolling:
    Slimguide BF at 14%
    67.5 inch height
    weight 177
    neck 16.75
    bicep 15.25 (unpumped- pumped is 15.7)
    forearm 12.5
    chest 44
    waist (1" above naval) 34"
    thigh 22.5
    calf 15.5

    http://www.trulyhuge.com/fitnesscalculators.htm

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.