What are considered good sized arms for a 5'9" man?

What are considered good sized arms for a 5'9" man?
No steroids. Measured at the highest point of the bicep.
I am currently at about 17".
What is the generally accepted "goal"?

On Oct 12, 10:33 pm, Richard McBeef <cho.seung-...@vt.edu> wrote:
> What are considered good sized arms for a 5'9" man?

I suspect that varies from person to person, right? What you consider
"good sized" may pale to someone else's opinion, goal, etc.

> No steroids. Measured at the highest point of the bicep.
> I am currently at about 17".

Ripped? I think it was my bestestest online MFW pal who said he
noticed tons (literally) of people at the grocery store with 20-inch
arms. Not a vein in sight, unfortunately.

Iirc, Bradley J. Steiner, old school bodybuilding author, offered that
a flexed arm measurement ten inches over your wrist measurement was
ginormous. I have a 6 1/2-inch wrist.

Shut up, 'bert. Everyone has had the opportunity to read that your
wrists and knees measure less than a woman's. And, yeah, yeah, 27-inch
waist, yadayada, you trained, you authored, you, you, you. SHADDAP!

Ahem. And if I saw 16 1/2" on the tape measure I'd cry tears of joy.

> What is the generally accepted "goal"?

What's your wrist measure? You could weigh against Steiner's 10-over
philosophy.

Regardless, "good sized" is highly variable, imo. There is no
"generally accepted," but, certainly, I'd never ask Gregg Valentino!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Valentino

--
Curt

"Richard McBeef" <cho.seung-hui@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:78WPi.249$eg.247@fe107.usenetserver.com...
> What are considered good sized arms for a 5'9" man?
> No steroids. Measured at the highest point of the bicep.
> I am currently at about 17".
> What is the generally accepted "goal"?

There is no generally accepted goal. It has to do with too many
variables, e.g., I'm your basic skinny runner body type and spent most
of my life with upper arms that measured less than 13". Now that I have
15" upper arms, they look huge on me but they wouldn't on you. You
don't mention your weight - that's obviously a variable here. 17" arms
might look small on a 275 lb. powerlifter of your height.

Just my opinion.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

On Oct 13, 1:41 pm, "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
[...]

> Just my opinion.

Really? I thought you were channeling Charles Atlas.

--
Curt

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Curt wrote:

> On Oct 12, 10:33 pm, Richard McBeef <cho.seung-...@vt.edu> wrote:
>
>> What is the generally accepted "goal"?
>
> There is no "generally accepted,"

I've certainly heard sixteen inches bandied about as a standard for good
biceps. You're right that it's nonsense to talk about arm circumference in
isolation from wrist size and body fat level, but that doesn't stop people
doing it.

Also, there's a "General Lee excepted" clause in the Texas state road
safety regulations.

tom

--
No hay banda

On Oct 14, 2:03 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Curt wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 10:33 pm, Richard McBeef <cho.seung-...@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> >> What is the generally accepted "goal"?
>
> > There is no "generally accepted,"
>
> I've certainly heard sixteen inches bandied about as a standard for good
> biceps. You're right that it's nonsense to talk about arm circumference in
> isolation from wrist size and body fat level, but that doesn't stop people
> doing it.

No doubt.

> Also, there's a "General Lee excepted" clause in the Texas state road
> safety regulations.

Izzat the one where you can leap your car over other cars in the event
of emergencies (or you're simply having a good ol' time)?

> tom

--
Curt

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Curt wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2:03 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Curt wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 10:33 pm, Richard McBeef <cho.seung-...@vt.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> What is the generally accepted "goal"?
>>
>>> There is no "generally accepted,"
>>
>> Also, there's a "General Lee excepted" clause in the Texas state road
>> safety regulations.
>
> Izzat the one where you can leap your car over other cars in the event
> of emergencies (or you're simply having a good ol' time)?

No, only when escaping from Boss Hogg.

tom

--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:33:39 -0400, Richard McBeef <cho.seung-hui@vt.edu> wrote:

>What are considered good sized arms for a 5'9" man?


They should be long enough to reach your wrists.

"Richard McBeef" <cho.seung-hui@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:78WPi.249$eg.247@fe107.usenetserver.com...
> What are considered good sized arms for a 5'9" man?
> No steroids. Measured at the highest point of the bicep.
> I am currently at about 17".
> What is the generally accepted "goal"?

Measurements mean nothing. Muscle "size" is all relative to the amount of
muscle in relation to the joint and bone size. I'll bet that many people
have a larger calve measurement than I do, but mine will look much bigger in
relation to knee and ankle size. BTW, stop posting with the fake name.



--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

On Oct 15, 6:46 pm, "Hard Bop Drums" <nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> "Richard McBeef" <cho.seung-...@vt.edu> wrote
> > What are considered good sized arms for a 5'9" man?
> > No steroids. Measured at the highest point of the bicep.
> > I am currently at about 17".
> > What is the generally accepted "goal"?
>
> Measurements mean nothing.

Your opinion means nothing. What I mean is that you seem to love
making pronouncements simply because you've competed. Whoopie and old
news, pal. Any respect I may have had for that status has been
vaporized by your sh!tty attitude overall. I suspect that many new
exercise enthusiasts, lifters, bodybuilders, what have you, find that
measurements mean a great deal. Some indication of whether or not
their hard work is offering results.

Guess they didn't cover that in prep school.

> Muscle "size" is all relative to the amount of
> muscle in relation to the joint and bone size.

So? You itching to tell everyone about your joint and bone size as
relative to your ex? Again?!

> I'll bet that many people have a larger calve

Calve? Is that another example of you putting that ginormous SAT
Verbal score to good use? D'OH!

> measurement than I do, but mine will look much bigger in
> relation to knee and ankle size.

NO ONE CARES!

> BTW, stop posting with the fake name.

Btw, stop obsessing over another MFW patron's choice to post
anonymously or while using a nickname.

Domass.

Am I all wrong here? Any care to agree, disagree, or otherwise comment
on my dissatisfaction with 'bert? Meh. I guess most people obsess over
something. Schuh is has his "fake name" rant and I've got my "toot
your own horn" aversion.

Curt <--- "real name"

P.S. Hey, post using a real name and he'll probably just find a reason
to kill file you. HA!

--

"Curt" < you seem to love making pronouncements simply because you've
competed. Whoopie and old news, pal.>>

Even though I have ripped Rob (mostly because he is so mean), I still have a
lot of hidden respect for him. I would like to see some recent photos. 1989
was 20 years ago.