Arm size and relation to weight

[darkwing86]

Ok , heres something Ive always debated . For a person say weighting 180-190lb its seems the body will always try to stay within certain propartions for its weight . so at that weight , say maybe someone can achive 18-19 inch arms max . in order to grow them bigger then that , someone would have to weigh more on their frame . say even if at 190 , all you do all week is train arms , you still wont ever see a guy with 22 inch arms on a small 5'8" frame . because the body always stays within certain proportions to its weight . What do you guys think about this , or do you know anyone who disproves this -- given they haven't first bulked to a higher weight and cut down (exp. lee priest show ready around 210lb 22" arms ) but off season is closer to 270-280 at 5'6")

 

[jozifp103]

Ok , heres something Ive always debated . For a person say weighting 180-190lb its seems the body will always try to stay within certain propartions for its weight . so at that weight , say maybe someone can achive 18-19 inch arms max . in order to grow them bigger then that , someone would have to weigh more on their frame . say even if at 190 , all you do all week is train arms , you still wont ever see a guy with 22 inch arms on a small 5'8" frame . because the body always stays within certain proportions to its weight . What do you guys think about this , or do you know anyone who disproves this -- given they haven't first bulked to a higher weight and cut down (exp. lee priest show ready around 210lb 22" arms ) but off season is closer to 270-280 at 5'6")

there was another thread exactly like this a few months ago and it seems noone can agree on this. I was always a believer that your body wants to grow as a whole, so growing your legs and chest will also help with arm growth etc.

however, as i have gained more experience and spent more time in the gym i'm noticing that this might not be the case. There are people who I know for a fact do not train legs, back, shoulders, etc..and have bulging arms. I've seen guys with feminine little frames, narrow shoulders and no upper body developement with huge arms. it looks rediculous, but i think any muscle will continue to grow as long as you train it and feed it.

 

[Mr P]

moved to the appropiate forum

 

[darkwing86]

jozifp103 , for that I agree completely with you . im sure youll find guys that have no other muscular development but still have huge arms if that's all they train . But what im getting at a bit more is that there seems to be a capped size your arms will get at certain weight . what I mean , if a guy stays around 160 lb all his life , he will never in 20 years even achieve 22 inch arms , because his body doesn't have that much mass and wont throw itself that out of proportion . its like u need a certain amount of overall mass to achieve certain mass in other parts of the body . even if arms is all you train . any thoughts ?

 

[halfwit]

Adding size adds mass. It's improbable to gain muscle, maintain the same level of fat and water - yet not see a change on the scale. If a person weighs 160lbs and ALWAYS weighs 160lbs, the only factors that can change would be (assuming a gain in lbm) fat/water/bone mass.

I do not believe that we are locked into a specific size of arm (or any muscle group for that matter) due to overall symmetry. If that were the case, Arnold and many of the guys from the 70's to early 90's wouldn't have spent so much time trying to keep everything in balance. Genetic limitations being overcome with the addition of AAS, etc being implied of course.

For the record I know a guy that has bigger calves than quads. I'm pretty sure that if we had a limit (he's natty), he'd have ridiculous quads to match.

My .02c

 

[darkwing86]

lets say it this way , anyone think its possible to be around 160 - 170 and have 22 inch arms ?

 

[3J]

syntrol.. lmao..

no.. it would be very very difficult..