GH15 might want to look in to The Luke knowledge

[EL Mariachi]

Wrong.

A decrease from 20 to 16 is a 20% decrease. The number 20 has decreased by 4 which is 20% of the original number (20): a 20% decrease.

An increase from 16 to 20 is a 25% increase. The number 16 has increased by 4 which is 25% of the original number (16): a 25% increase.


The Luke

let me get my calculator i need to count this   yes thats why i wasnt sure if it was 20 or 25%

[Per Se]

let me get my calculator i need to count this   yes thats why i wasnt sure if it was 20 or 25%

oh please - it doesn't matter!

[Figo]

correct. but a 10 inch pizza is 50% the diameter of a 20 inch pizza, but probably contains somewhere around 25 percent as much food.

Im getting hungry

[mesmorph78]

I think only bodybuilders more than one standard deviation below average height can exceed the formula by more than an inch and a half... that, and synthol.

That's why I'm always careful to mention the context of a "genuine" muscular arm.

Why people believe in the existence of a 24'' muscular arm when no such thing has ever been proven is beyond me... hell, even a 23'' arm is more elusive than Bigfoot.
 

The Luke

I know you saw the pic of zack khan measuring his arms at 23 inches

[Palpatine Q]

in retail if you mark something up 50% and then put it on sale for 50% off you lose money.

pay $10 wholesale and markup 50% becomes $15. mark down 50% it becomes $7.50.  you go 50% both ways, but end up $2.50 in the negative.

I wouldn't contest Hazbins numbers...apparently he's pretty good at this stuff 

[The Luke]

I know you saw the pic of zack khan measuring his arms at 23 inches

I saw a picture of him taping his arm diagonally and not overlapping the tape end properly in such a way that the 23'' demarkation would be visible...?

Is that the picture you are referring to?


I don't think Zach Khan is actually big enough to have a 23'' arm... maybe just about a 22'' arm, that's about right for his bodyweight. But it takes about 40 lbs of new muscle to go from a 22'' arm to a 23'' arm.

I don't think anyone has ever reached the level of development that goes with a 23'' arm at average height.

A genuine 24'' arm just doesn't exist... you'd need to be a lean 350 lbs.


I know you disagree with my scale and mathematical argument... but we live in a mathematical universe; and my simple extrapolation just so happens to match pretty much every verified pro bodybuilder arm/weight ratio ever measured.

You say Ronnie had 24'' arms... but the only verified measurement we have is 21.7'' (which fits perfectly on the scale).

You say Levrone had 24'' arms... but we have no verified measurement; all we can ascertain by comparison is that his arms were smaller than Ronnie's.


Proof of YOUR 20'' arm at 210 lbs and 5'10'' would certainly disprove it. (Correct me if those stats are wrong)


The Luke

[flinstones1]

20 page thread for the size of somebody's arm. 

[Palpatine Q]

I saw a picture of him taping his arm diagonally and not overlapping the tape end properly in such a way that the 23'' demarkation would be visible...?

Is that the picture you are referring to?


I don't think Zach Khan is actually big enough to have a 23'' arm... maybe just about a 22'' arm, that's about right for his bodyweight. But it takes about 40 lbs of new muscle to go from a 22'' arm to a 23'' arm.

I don't think anyone has ever reached the level of development that goes with a 23'' arm at average height.

A genuine 24'' arm just doesn't exist... you'd need to be a lean 350 lbs.


I know you disagree with my scale and mathematical argument... but we live in a mathematical universe; and my simple extrapolation just so happens to match pretty much every verified pro bodybuilder arm/weight ratio ever measured.

You say Ronnie had 24'' arms... but the only verified measurement we have is 21.7'' (which fits perfectly on the scale).

You say Levrone had 24'' arms... but we have no verified measurement; all we can ascertain by comparison is that his arms were smaller than Ronnie's.


Proof of YOUR 20'' arm at 210 lbs and 5'10'' would certainly disprove it. (Correct me if those stats are wrong)


The Luke

I just have to say one thing to all of your calculations and theories.....according to WHO?

please show me the exhaustive, documented research of  arm size to bodyweight ratio.

Oh that's right....i forgot...you just pull this shit out of your ass 

[doison]

Does Teh Luke have his PhD in Physics? 

[lovemonkey]

Wow... been filming today, didn't think this thread would be so popular.


There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here regarding the formula I posted:
-El Mariachi made the erroneous claim that a 20'' arm is only 25% bigger than a 16'' arm
-Kiwiol erroneously claimed that I was citing surface area
-Ursus/Goudy erroneously cited Frankhauser's calves as an exception to my formula

...I'll address each of these misunderstandings individually.


El Mariachi: a 20'' arm is 25% bigger than a 16'' arm

This is actually wrong, but only when you understand what the circumference actually represents. If you think a circumferences increase linearlyly with a mass/volume (it doesn't), then you might assume that you can simply divide 20 by 16 to get 1.25 and think a 20'' circumference is 25% bigger than a 16'' arm.

But it's not.

Imagine two soup cans, big catering-size monster soup cans. Both cans are the same height (ten inches tall), but one can is 20'' around (circumference) while the other is only 16'' around.

How much bigger is the 20'' circumference can than the 16'' circumference can.

Well, let's compare the formulae:
Volume of 20'' around 10'' tall can = pi(Circumference/2pi)² x height = pi(20''/2pi)² x 10'' = (20²/2pi)x10
Volume of 16'' around 10'' tall can = pi(Circumference/2pi)² x height = pi(16''/2pi)² x 10'' = (16²/2pi)x10

When you divide (for a ratio), the height and 2pi factors cancel... (Volume of big can)/(Volume of small can) = 20²/16²

And... 20²/16² = 400/256 = 1.56  ....the 20'' can is 56% bigger than the 16'' can.


So, very obviously, if a ten inch tall can that's 20'' around is 56% bigger, 56% heavier than a similar ten inch tall can that's only 16'' around.... then a guy with a 20'' arm has 56% more muscle in his arm than a guy with a 16'' arm, if both men have the same length humerus (upper arm bone).

So we could expect a proportionate bodybuilder to gain approx 56% extra bodyweight in going from a 16'' arm to a 20'' arm... for the average height bodybuilder, this means a 20'' arm requires approximately 250 lbs of lean muscle.  



Kiwiol: I'm citing surface area

No. If you still don't understand the diffence between an increase in a square dependent measurement like girth and an increase in a linearly dependent measurement like length, then I've got a little thought experimet for you:

Imagine two matchboxes... a big matchbox and a little matchbox.

Big Matchbox is a bully; he taunts Little Matchbox: "Hey wimpy Little Matchbox, I'm twice your weight. That means I'm twice as big as you: I'm twice as wide... twice as tall... and twice as thick!"

But Little Matchbox knew a little mathematics, so he just laughed:

"Bullshit Big Matchbox, you are a liar! You might be twice my weight... but you arn't twice as wide; nor are you twice as tall or twice as thick as me. Everyone knows that a bundle of matchboxes twice as wide, twice as tall and twice as thick as a single box of matches would be TWO matchboxes wide; TWO matchboxes tall and TWO matchboxes deep."

"Two by two by two... that's a bundle of EIGHT matchboxes." ...shrieked Big Matchbox, realising his mistake.

Little Matchbox laughed: "You are not eight times heavier than me... you are just twice my weight, therefore considering our identical proportions you are only 26% taller than me; 26% wider than me and only 26% thicker than me. Because the cube root of two (twice) is 1.25992. To be twice my height; twice my weight and twice my thickness you'd need to be EIGHT times my weight... because weight and volume are cube dependent, not linear."

See the difference?

Arm size is NOT linear... it's not like a string getting longer without getting any thicker... arm size is NOT cube-dependent... as arm size increases an arm gets thicker and taller, but it doesn't get any longer...

Arm size is square-dependent... so differences in arm size are a ratio of the SQUARES of he circumferences... because we are talking about an increase in cross-sectional area.

Remember, ratios for linear measurements like lengths... ratios of squares for measurments like areas... ratios of cubes for measurements like volumes.  


Ursus/Goudy: Frankhauser's calves as an exception to my formula

Actually no. There may be a maximum possible arm size for a certain bodyweight... but that doesn't mean there is a corresponding minimum arm size.

Taking someone like Eric Frankhauser (spelling?) for example, it might seem the discrepancy between his somewhat sub-par arms and exceptional calves disprove my formula... but that is not the case.

Actually, the formula I posted holds for calves too... once you appreciate that there is about a two inch difference between the MAXIMUM calf measurement at a particular bodyweight and the MAXIMUM arm measurement at that same bodyweight.

So:
15'' arm would go with 150 lbs ...but allow for a 17'' maximum calf measurement... and so on:

16'' arm would go with 171 lbs ...but allow for a 17'' maximum calf measurement
17'' arm would go with 193 lbs ...but allow for a 18'' maximum calf measurement
18'' arm would go with 216 lbs ...but allow for a 19'' maximum calf measurement
19'' arm would go with 241 lbs ...but allow for a 20'' maximum calf measurement
20'' arm would go with 267 lbs ...but allow for a 21'' maximum calf measurement
21'' arm would go with 294 lbs ...but allow for a 22'' maximum calf measurement
22'' arm would go with 323 lbs ...but allow for a 23'' maximum calf measurement
23'' arm would go with 353 lbs ...but allow for a 24'' maximum calf measurement
24'' arm would go with 384 lbs ...but allow for a 25'' maximum calf measurement

...guys like Frankhauser (usually of Northern European descent with lots of Brehin genes) are NOT off the scale; their massive calves are within two inches of the maximum arm measurement allowable at their particular lean bodyweight.

Frankhauser, I'm assuming, is about 230 lbs in those recent photos... so according to my simple scale his MAXIMUM arm measurement is about 18.5'' to 19'' (which he doesn't meet) and his MAXIMUM calf measurement is approximately 21'' (which he might actually be approaching).

The scale still works for calves too... just that with calves, almost no one is near the maximum possible measurement for teir bodyweight (due to racial factors)

Remember, my scale gives the bodyweight required to achieve a certain arm measurement (and by adding two inches gives the bodyweight required to achieve a certain calf measurment)... that doesn't mean everyone at those bodyweights will match those measurements: it means NO ONE significantly exceeds those measurements without the concordant bodyweight.



Sorry for the long post, hope that explains the misunderstandings.

The Luke  

Wow. Just straight up fuckin wow. I have now seen it all.

[The Luke]

I just have to say one thing to all of your calculations and theories.....according to WHO?

please show me the exhaustive, documented research of  arm size to bodyweight ratio.

Oh that's right....i forgot...you just pull this shit out of your ass  

Google: "Anthropometry" ...it's an actual science in and of itself.

There are even online databases, compiled from millions and millions of measurements. The Polish public school system (for example) used to take dozens of measurements of every single kid; millions of them, for decades (not sure if that practice continued after communism) and add that data to the extensive measurements taken of national service inductee and army recruit. The US military also compiled such databases.

In fact, it is anthropometrists who devise the sizes for mass produced clothes... everyone reading this thread is wearing the proof that such ratios work.

The same databases; ratios and equations have been compiled for chimps; orangs and gorillas... there are even limb/bodymass ratios for the major bones of farmyard animals.

For example, the bodyweight required for an approx 6' silverback male gorilla to have a 24'' upper arm is 550 lbs.

Think about that.


If anyone wants to disprove my very simplified ratio and the extrapolations I made from it, well, they can simply post some verified proof. That's how science works.


The Luke

[The Luke]

So they took the measurements of millions of people and you came up with this. That means this might be right for the "average" male, but there are always gonna be people who are better, and worse, than the average.

Meso destroys you.

Yes, the variance is about an inch.

Not three inches.

If Ronnie had 24'' arms, and Kevin Levrone had 24'' arms, Arnold had 22'' arms and Mesomorph has 20'' arms... why is there no evidence of this whatsoever?

Why are these measurements so at odds with a simple formula that accurately predicts every pro bodybuilders VERIFIED arm measurement?


Levrone competed at 240 lbs; 260 lbs offseason... he'd need to be 360 lbs to have 24'' arms.

Get real guys.


The Luke

[MAXX]

The Luke is a legit retard...

That is all.

[Palpatine Q]

Yes, the variance is about an inch.

Not three inches.

If Ronnie had 24'' arms, and Kevin Levrone had 24'' arms, Arnold had 22'' arms and Mesomorph has 20'' arms... why is there no evidence of this whatsoever?

Why are these measurements so at odds with a simple formula that accurately predicts every pro bodybuilders VERIFIED arm measurement?


Levrone competed at 240 lbs; 260 lbs offseason... he'd need to be 360 lbs to have 24'' arms.

Get real guys.


The Luke

why.... because of measurements taken of gorillas and children in Poland ?

When someone does an exhaustive study of THOUSANDS of upper arm measurements of BBers, both juiced and natty...then you will have a leg to stand on.

You are comparing apples and oranges,  you dolt

[TRIX]

luke says contest....... groink you have fatceps................. ........... like me

[The Luke]

The Luke is a legit retard...

That is all.

Then why does the ratio work?

Seems everyone here has a pseudo religious belief in Joe Weider's exaggerations.

What's wrong? Gotta believe Levrone had 24'' arms so you can reinforce the delusion your 4'' dick is a porn-compatible "seven and change"?

Someone post some proof and shut me up.



The Luke

[kiwiol]

Then why does the ratio work?

Seems everyone here has a pseudo religious belief in Joe Weider's exaggerations.

What's wrong? Gotta believe Levrone had 24'' arms so you can reinforce the delusion your 4'' dick is a porn-compatible "seven and change"?

Someone post some proof and shut me up.



The Luke

I don't think K Lo ever had 24" arms. But that formula you posted about a person of such and such body weight having such and such arm size is something you pulled out of your ass. People have already disproven it by citing the differences in arm size between guys like Lee Priest and Dan Hill.

I'll put it very simply this way - arm size DOES NOT have a correlation of 1 with body weight, which is the basic flaw in your argument. Guys who are lighter than others who are heavier have bigger arms than the latter - lots of people see this in gyms everyday. And it's not just arms - it's also calves, back, bench press, intelligence, height etc.

You can measure over a 1000 non-lifting guys from Poland circa 1800 to support a claim that no person under 200 lb can bench 300 lb, just like no person under 300 lb can bench 400 lb and so on (to give an example), but that's not going to make it true. There will be quite a few exceptions who disprove the rule, just as they do your body weight / arm size ratio formula.

You are the one who posted that body weight to arm size ratio chart. Why don't you prove that there are no exceptions to your rule? You can't, because it's just not universally true.

[Mr Nobody]

I don't think K Lo ever had 24" arms. But that formula you posted about a person of such and such body weight having such and such arm size is something you pulled out of your ass. People have already disproven it by citing the differences in arm size between guys like Lee Priest and Dan Hill.

I'll put it very simply this way - arm size DOES NOT have a correlation of 1 with body weight, which is the basic flaw in your argument. Guys who are lighter than others who are heavier have bigger arms than the latter - lots of people see this in gyms everyday.

You are the one who posted that body weight to arm size ratio chart. Why don't you prove that there are no exceptions to your rule? You can't, because it's just not universally true.

I dont thinks anyone has 24" arms its all BS.

[kiwiol]

I dont thinks anyone has 24" arms its all BS.

Ronnie at 320 lb might have had 23" arms or a tad bigger. But no way did his arms measure a "mere" 21 something inches either. Yes, Arthur Jones measured Arnold's arm cold at 19.7" or something like that, but that one occasion wasn't necessarily Arnold at his biggest. No way were Arnold's arms less than 20" at their biggest. Anyone who thinks that has no idea of what they're talking about.

The Luke's argument is full of holes and there are tons of examples that disprove his assertion. Look at Dorian Yates and Nasser in the 97 Mr Olympia - they both weighed 270 lb, but Nasser's arms were way bigger than Dorian's. Going by the Luke's formula, there can't be any difference between the arm sizes of 2 guys who are in the same weight range.

[Mr Nobody]

Ronnie at 320 lb might have had 23" arms or a tad bigger. But no way did his arms measure a "mere" 21 something inches either. Yes, Arthur Jones measured Arnold's arm cold at 19.7" or something like that, but that one occasion wasn't necessarily Arnold at his biggest. No way were Arnold's arms less than 20" at their biggest. Anyone who thinks that has no idea of what they're talking about.

Correct kiwiol most of these measurements are overblown look at this pic is there anyone with a bigger arm even today? Dont take Method101's arm into consideration.

[EL Mariachi]

The Luke you suck. First you say Stark is some huge guy then he posts his pictures embarrasing you, and now all this bullshit.

there is a simple explenation for this not beeing accurate, The Luke will explain in a bit

[Ursus]

My arms are a legit 19" pumped.

Meso's look bigger than mine - thicker also. His probaly are 20"

[mesmorph78]

There a vide showing a guy measuring his arm over 23

mariachi.  I'm sure you don't think groinks are are 18 inches cmon dude

Not because someone has big arms means he may necessarily want to tape them to prove a point you say you would if you had extraordinarily big arms that's you. Not everyone is like that. Cranky to a guy with big arms it's not that much of a big deal because he is used to big arms  

[TRIX]

to be fair, is not even tightened around his arm, probably be under 23"

[MAXX]

The Luke you suck. First you say Stark is some huge guy then he posts his pictures embarrasing you, and now all this bullshit.

Roberts is about 24 and Levrones looks bigger.

I don't think Levrone lied.