Author Topic: Phil Heath in Colmar  (Read 13750 times)

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2010, 06:16:35 PM »
Zack Khan has 1.5 inches bigger arms. But he is taller so it's only natural.

...based on his bodyweight and height, Zack Khan has arms maybe half an inch to three quarters of an inch bigger.

The pics of his arms taped show that too.


Remember, you need to add a muge amount of bodyweight to increase an inch when your arm is already over 20 inches.

The guideline weight for a 21'' arm is 294 lbs (assuming average height and 10% bf)
The guideline weight for a 22'' arm is 323 lbs
The guideline weight for a 23'' arm is 353 lbs

Zack Khan's arms are just over 22''... but that's still a full 7% bigger than Heaths (and there just so happens to be a 7% difference in their lean bodyweights too).


The Luke

no one

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11917
  • have i hurt your feelings?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2010, 06:16:46 PM »
Wow!

56cm... which would be 54cm with a tight tape and a proper perpendicular measurement... but that's just nit-picking.

54cm = 21.2598 inches
55cm = 21.6535 inches
56cm = 22.0472 inches

...so assuming he's training arms and has a bit of a pump; let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him a legitimate 21.5'' cold arm.

Using the basic formula I posted:
((21.5'')2/(15)2)x150lbs = 308 lbs

...allowing for Phil being an inch or so shorter than average he should weigh 290-295 lbs in those pics.

Which would be 280-290 lbs allowing for his small frame (clavicle-wise; there is a cube relation between chest measurement and bodyweight)... which is probably exactly what he weighs in those pics.


Seems like all the guys claiming "Ronnie had 24'' arms"; "Levrone had 24'' arms"; "Arnie had 22'' arms" and criticising the basic math I used to calculate the guideline ratios in that other thread... well, it seems they all owe me an apology.

So, how about it? Anyone man enough to admit they were wrong?


The Luke

you've been smoking too much rock if you think phil heath is anywhere near 290 in those pics.
b

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2010, 06:24:26 PM »
you've been smoking too much rock if you think phil heath is anywhere near 290 in those pics.

...isn't he 270-280 most off-seasons; 240-250 in contest shape? He's 5'8''-5'9'' right? He might be lighter but still have those measurements if he's 5'7'' or shorter.


One thing is for sure... those pictures put to rest the fantasy that Arnold ever had a 22'' arm.


The Luke

TRIX

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3533
  • If you mess with me I'll have to fuck you up
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2010, 06:30:40 PM »
Phil is probably 255 - 260 there

tendonitis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2010, 06:32:23 PM »
Phil is 260 tops there at 5'9"

Captain Equipoise

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12927
  • back from the dead...
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2010, 06:38:04 PM »
Wow!

56cm... which would be 54cm with a tight tape and a proper perpendicular measurement... but that's just nit-picking.

54cm = 21.2598 inches
55cm = 21.6535 inches
56cm = 22.0472 inches

...so assuming he's training arms and has a bit of a pump; let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him a legitimate 21.5'' cold arm.

Using the basic formula I posted:
((21.5'')2/(15)2)x150lbs = 308 lbs

...allowing for Phil being an inch or so shorter than average he should weigh 290-295 lbs in those pics.

Which would be 280-290 lbs allowing for his small frame (clavicle-wise; there is a cube relation between chest measurement and bodyweight)... which is probably exactly what he weighs in those pics.


Seems like all the guys claiming "Ronnie had 24'' arms"; "Levrone had 24'' arms"; "Arnie had 22'' arms" and criticising the basic math I used to calculate the guideline ratios in that other thread... well, it seems they all owe me an apology.

So, how about it? Anyone man enough to admit they were wrong?


The Luke

You're obsessed beyond delusional, quite teh mental dwarf...seek medical attention immediately

Flexb

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2975
  • word
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2010, 06:41:10 PM »
Burnieka is a meatball. Pretty cocky for a guy that can't get shredded yet thinks he's Mr. O already

lesaucer

  • Guest
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2010, 06:42:56 PM »
You're obsessed beyond delusional, quite teh mental dwarf...seek medical attention immediately


hahahahhaa seriously luke, you're a fucking retard, and your formula, is shit

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2010, 06:43:40 PM »
You're obsessed beyond delusional, quite teh mental dwarf...seek medical attention immediately

Weren't you one of the guys claiming Ronnie had 24s and most pros ha 22-23s...?

I realise I'm open for criticism and personal attack for daring to question the truth as handed down from on high by FLEX magazine, but we're all agreed on the math, right?


The Luke

Captain Equipoise

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12927
  • back from the dead...
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2010, 06:46:16 PM »
Weren't you one of the guys claiming Ronnie had 24s and most pros ha 22-23s...?

I realise I'm open for criticism and personal attack for daring to question the truth as handed down from on high by FLEX magazine, but we're all agreed on the math, right?


The Luke

You've got to have some bitch ass arms to be hating this hard on every pro with big arms...what are they, seriously ? like method's 13" canons?

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2010, 06:50:09 PM »
hahahahhaa seriously luke, you're a fucking retard, and your formula, is shit

But it predicts bodyweights and real arm measurements accurately.


The Luke

kiwiol

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18393
  • Who is John Galt?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2010, 06:51:59 PM »
You've got to have some bitch ass arms to be hating this hard on every pro with big arms...what are they, seriously ? like method's 13" canons?


Either he's trolling to get a rise out of people here or one big imbecile. According to him, Lee Priest's arms are around 21" in the pic below, but Ronnie's can't be even that much, cause his arm was measured at 21.7" at a body weight of 317 lb (he's 260 lb in the pics) on some occasion that's the only acceptable one to our genius arm expert, lol


lesaucer

  • Guest
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2010, 06:56:22 PM »
its crazy how ronnie is seriously dominating everyone! shit, his arms are double the size of those of lee priest

kiwiol

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18393
  • Who is John Galt?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2010, 07:05:16 PM »
its crazy how ronnie is seriously dominating everyone! shit, his arms are double the size of those of lee priest

All the pics from that contests as well as video clips show the exact same thing - Ronnie's arms were a good 1.5" - 2" bigger than Lee's. Luke agrees that Lee's arms are 21", but won't accept Ronnie's arms are over 22", because it negates the unquestionable, irrefutable measurement of 21.7" that was measured at a body weight of over 300 lb.

Based on those pics and pics of the 1997 Olympia, anyone can see that guys like Nasser, Dillett, Levrone and Flex all had arms well over 22" at body weights ranging from 240 lb - 270 lb. Guess teh Luke pulled out that formula from the same place where he hides his buttplug ;D

Flexb

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2975
  • word
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2010, 07:06:34 PM »
I'd give Ronnie 3 more inches on his arms judging on those pics with priest

tendonitis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2010, 07:07:39 PM »
Ronnie's arms are AT LEAST 2 inches bigger than Lee's in those pics.  AT LEAST

Pollux

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
  • I'm kind of a big deal!
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2010, 07:08:13 PM »
Holy shit!  :o


Hulkotron

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28249
  • also shopped my pic you tried to make it subtle
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2010, 07:09:32 PM »
It must be really irritating to frequently remove all your armpit hair.

What "The Luke" does not understand about all this scaling bullshit is that it only applies across different species and very large (i.e. order of magnitude) differences in size.

Tapeworm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 29139
  • Hold Fast
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2010, 07:10:18 PM »
He really is a fool. He admits that Lee Priest's arms onstage are around 21", but after I post pics from the Olympia showing Ronnie's arms to be a couple of inches bigger, talked about misleading angles of pics and other BS and is now back to claiming that Ronnie's arms at their biggest were 21.7" when he weighed 310 lb ::)

Arguing with him is a fcuking waste of time.

Blood sweat and tears in every single post.

kiwiol

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18393
  • Who is John Galt?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2010, 07:12:05 PM »
Blood sweat and tears in every single post.

What can I say? Men in thongs = serious business.

Flexb

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2975
  • word
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2010, 07:12:20 PM »
...based on his bodyweight and height, Zack Khan has arms maybe half an inch to three quarters of an inch bigger.

The pics of his arms taped show that too.


Remember, you need to add a muge amount of bodyweight to increase an inch when your arm is already over 20 inches.

The guideline weight for a 21'' arm is 294 lbs (assuming average height and 10% bf)
The guideline weight for a 22'' arm is 323 lbs
The guideline weight for a 23'' arm is 353 lbs

Zack Khan's arms are just over 22''... but that's still a full 7% bigger than Heaths (and there just so happens to be a 7% difference in their lean bodyweights too).


The Luke

height and weight don't for sure mean a guy will have a said arm measurement. Some people obviously grow some bodyparts more than others

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2010, 07:12:59 PM »
All the pics from that contests as well as video clips show the exact same thing - Ronnie's arms were a good 1.5" - 2" bigger than Lee's. Luke agrees that Lee's arms are 21", but won't accept Ronnie's arms are over 22", because it negates the unquestionable, irrefutable measurement of 21.7" that was measured at a body weight of over 300 lb.

Based on those pics and pics of the 1997 Olympia, anyone can see that guys like Nasser, Dillett, Levrone and Flex all had arms well over 22" at body weights ranging from 240 lb - 270 lb. Guess teh Luke pulled out that formula from the same place where he hides his buttplug ;D

A month after the 2004 Olympia Ronnie weighed 305 lbs but only had a 21.7'' arm... as seen on tv.

Yet you guys insist Ronnie had 23-24'' arms ON STAGE?


That's pretty delusional. Come visit planet earth sometime guys.


The Luke  

TRIX

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3533
  • If you mess with me I'll have to fuck you up
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2010, 07:16:08 PM »
You gotta understand ronnies were ripped 22 inches at 305 lbs. Lees are a shady picture 21.5 no where near contest condition.

kiwiol

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18393
  • Who is John Galt?
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2010, 07:17:29 PM »
Come visit planet earth sometime guys.

I can't. I'm afraid Bigfoot will come get me.

Lion666

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
  • You gotta bring it to get it!
Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2010, 07:57:50 PM »
that 1st pic is awesome

 :o