Max Size Calculator

Discussion in 'General Training' started by dkm1987, Feb 26, 2006.

  1. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

  2. stevejones

    stevejones New Member

    I hate that calculator. It's depressing. I've only been working out for around 3 years, and according to that chart, I'm already at my max size on everything except arms. My calves are a full 2 inches larger than they should be, according to that calculator. Makes me want to do steroids, lol
     
  3. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    Heh.

    My stats:

    69" height
    6" wrists (seriously)
    8.5" ankles

    My maximum predicted upper arm muscular size is 15" @ 8% bodyfat and ~173 lbs lean body mass.

    My upper arms presently measure 16" cold and flexed at a bodyweight of ~164-165 (dropped 12 lbs for summer on UD2/some other gradual calorie restriction earlier on). I'm not 8%, but I'm not that much above it.

    So, this means I've already beat genetics. TAKE THAT, GENETICS.
     
  4. jvroig

    jvroig Super Moderator

    Wow. It just occured to me that you, Dan, O&G, I think even Aaron, Fausto, me - and a lot of others I'm sure - are practically of the same size (at least by height, don't know about wrists and all that)

    Well , if you beat genetics, then... here's to hoping I get to beat it too! [​IMG]

    Regards,
    -JV
     
  5. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (jvroig @ Jul. 10 2006,03:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Wow. It just occured to me that you, Dan, O&amp;G, I think even Aaron, Fausto, me - and a lot of others I'm sure - are practically of the same size (at least by height, don't know about wrists and all that)

    Well , if you beat genetics, then... here's to hoping I get to beat it too! [​IMG]

    Regards,
    -JV</div>
    ~5'9&quot; - 5'10&quot; is average male height, so there's a certain logic there [​IMG]
     
  6. jvroig

    jvroig Super Moderator

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">~5'9&quot; - 5'10&quot; is average male height, so there's a certain logic there [​IMG]</div>
    Didn't know that, but I guess that might also depend on nationality.

    Anyway, since you've beaten genetics into saying &quot;uncle&quot;, are you still getting some serious gains until now? Ever wonder if there is really a genetic limit? (I'm pretty sure there has to be - but maybe it was so underestimated due to lack of proper training methods without &quot;assistance&quot;)

    Regards,
    -JV
     
  7. mostlyallan

    mostlyallan New Member

    Obviously its not a one size fits all calculator, but isnt say max bicep size determined by the length of the actual muscle fibres (from the point at which it connects to the tendon on the inside of the elbow to up near the shoulder)? I read something about measuring the tendon length - a short tendon (the muscle starts closer to the inside of the elbow) means a larger possible muscle than a longer tendon; though a long tendon (short muscle) would initially LOOK bigger at the same level of muscular development.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendon for a brief description.
     
  8. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    Is it just me or does this thing seem to predict fairly small legs? I'm quite below my genetic max for chest according to this thing, and I have another inch to add to my upper and forearms, yet my calves and thighs are at or above what it prescribes already. A 26 inch thigh just doesn't seem very big if that was your genetic max.
     
  9. jvroig

    jvroig Super Moderator

    Yeah, same for me, I observed that too. I simply thought i must really have small ankles.
     
  10. mostlyallan

    mostlyallan New Member

    Another thing ... bone density increases as you gain muscle - to what degree and wouldnt that change the measurements used in the calculator?
     
  11. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    For me, forearms are there, neck is past it, and everything else has a ways to go...but it doesn't take into account one important thing either...AGE!

    Try to build all that with naturally low test!
     
  12. mindstar

    mindstar New Member

    I don't know why, but for me, only my forearms and calves have anywhere to go...my upper arms and neck blew the calculator out of the water. It is interesting though...how many people are using this as a waypoint on the way to gear do you think?

    and Mike, I feel your pain, I'm 6' with 6.5 inch wrists (at 205 and 13%) but small bones are supposedly better for aesthetics. [​IMG]
     
  13. mindstar

    mindstar New Member

    I don't know why, but for me, only my forearms and calves have anywhere to go...my upper arms and neck blew the calculator out of the water. It is interesting though...how many people are using this as a waypoint on the way to gear do you think?

    and Mike, I feel your pain, I'm 6' with 6.5 inch wrists (at 205 and 13%) but small bones are supposedly better for aesthetics. [​IMG]
     
  14. jwbond

    jwbond New Member

    keep in mind everyone...

    the studies that the calculator was developed from did not make use of HST ;) I would think we can all naturally grow larger than the calculator suggests.
     
  15. Proton Soup

    Proton Soup New Member

    question about this:

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Predicted Maximum Stats at 8% Bodyfat
    Lean body weight:</div>

    where it says 'lean body weight', is that total body weight, or do i need to divide by 0.92 to get my total body weight?
     
  16. monkeyarms

    monkeyarms New Member

    <div>
    (Proton Soup @ Jul. 11 2006,05:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">question about this:

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Predicted Maximum Stats at 8% Bodyfat
    Lean body weight:</div>

    where it says 'lean body weight', is that total body weight, or do i need to divide by 0.92 to get my total body weight?</div>
    I've been assuming it's the latter. There's no way the measurement numbers add up if &quot;Lean Body Mass&quot; = Total weigh at 8% body fat.

    The use of &quot;lean body weight&quot; is confusing. A &quot;total weight&quot; and &quot;Lean Body Mass&quot; stat would be better. Still a nice little tool though.
     
  17. Matt Daniels

    Matt Daniels New Member

    According to that with 6.5 inch wrists and 9 inch ankles (that was on the bone part above it was 8.5 and im 66 inches tall my max weight is 175.8 ( give or take a few pounds probably) [​IMG] not to bad
     
  18. Matt Daniels

    Matt Daniels New Member

    crap...i can't edit my own post...oh well..anyways i did a calc of 66 inches 6.5 wrist and 9.5 ankle(on the bone maybe it should be moved above or below) and it was 182.7 so thats kewl..but also im 16 so maybe ill have one last growth spurt lol...wouldnt that be nice
     
  19. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">~5'9&quot; - 5'10&quot; is average male height, so there's a certain logic there [​IMG] </div>

    Damn, and I feel small at 6'2&quot;. [​IMG]
     
  20. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    I decided to recheck this. At 73 inches height, 7 for wrist and 9 for ankle, I came up with the following:

    Weight: 200.66
    Chest: 47.77
    Bicep: 17.10
    Forearm: 13.69
    Neck: 16.90
    Thigh: 24.73
    Calf: 16.72

    My legs are doing well apparently - calves are at that size right now and my thighs are 26 inches... Weird. Everything else is below what the calculator gives me. I've got about two inches to gain on biceps, a half an inch on forearms, six inches on chest (yeah, it's my worst bodypart) though strangely I only need to gain a half an inch on my neck.
    I must be proportioned strangely. Oh well, at least I'll never become one of those guys with a huge upper body and chicken legs to support it.
     

Share This Page