Are you fucking retarded ?!!? you think Ronnie's arms maxed out at 21.7" ?!?! Parker POSTED a clear video of him getting measured at 24" , lay down the crack pipe..
...such a clear video.
From thirty feet back in the audience you can clearly see a woman put a tape measure on Ronnie's arm and DECLARE it to be 24 inches.Was she an impartial judge or someone associated with the show or the show's promoter... maybe?
Would you believe ME if I similarly claimed MY arms were 24'' too? 'Cause they are!
oh and you might wanna give the math a rest , clearly it's not your strong suit..somehow in your magical world 24" is 50% bigger then 19.75" LOLOLOL
Okay, Captain...
Let me explain some basic math to you... an upper arm is a cross sectional area; we use circumference measurements for ease of measurement, but only because this measurement is dependent on cross-section... the thicker your upper arm gets (increase in cross sectional area) the bigger this circumference gets... weight training doesn't lengthen the upper arm, it only thickens it.
The ratio of two cross sectional areas, (be they ovals; elipses or circles) is dependent on the
square of the radius.
The cross sectional area of a circle (for the sake of argument) approximates an upper arm: Area = 2 x pi x r
2 and Circumference = 2 pi r ...where r denotes the upper arm radius.
So the ratio of two arm sizes would be:
Area1/Area2 = (2 pi r
12)/(2 pi r
22) ...but of course the constants cancel... = r
12/r
22 = (Circumference1/2pi)
2/(Circumference2/2pi)
2 = Circumference1
2/Circumference2
2...which of course is simply the ratio of the SQUARES of the circumferences.
So, for example: using an 18'' arm and a 16'' arm... 18
2/16
2 = 324/256 = 1.265
Therefore, an 18'' arm is actually 27% bigger than a 16'' arm... NOT the 13% a simple ratio of measurements might give.
I'm not sure where you got lost reading this thread, Captain.
It's not as if I clearly explained my reasoning:
A 24'' arm? Are you guys high?
That's 48% bigger than an all-time best Arnold (cross sectional areas are expressed as a ratio of squares).
...and it's not as if I clearly explained the math to someone else including a worked example:
Well, a 24'' arm is about 50% bigger than a 19.75'' arm...
(24 x 24)/(19.75 x 19.75) = (24)2/(19.75)2 = (576)/(390) = 1.48 = 48% Bigger
...because we're talking about cross-sectional AREAS, and the ratio of two areas is the ratio of the squares of any radius-dependent measurement (circumference or diameter).
...and it's not as if I provided a second worked example to demonstrate the concept further:
Phil Heath at 270 has 22'' arms... okay.
So to have 24'' arms he'd need to be 324 lbs with the same conditioning (20% bigger, as a 24'' arm is a fifth bigger than a 22'' arm: 242/222 = 1.2)
...I'm glad you're the Captain of Equipoise, 'cos you sure ain't the Captain of Reading Comprehension.
The Luke