Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/index.php)
-   Muscle Building and Bodybuilding (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Body measurements (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4926)

Rich Knapp 12-18-2010 11:53 PM

Body measurements
 
Just did my measurements.
I'm bigger than John McCallum’s chart ideals, but symmetrically little smaller than Steve Reeves ideal.

Q? At what body fat are these measurements to be taken at? Everyone retains fat different and in different areas.

Plus back in Steve's day they didn't get as ripped as present day natural bodybuilders. So in this point Steve's measurements would be at a month out by now days show prep and stage body fat standards. Thus making them a bit high from his true standard for a modern day stage size.

I can see McCallum's being more accurate for a modern day person on stage at 4% body fat or diced and shredded.
NOTE: These sizes now days are a good veteran amateur natural size. Many natural pro's are way beyond these sizes. Goal should be to keep the equal gain beyond these figures for each measurement. Perfect symmetry is what they were driving for..

BendtheBar 12-19-2010 09:08 AM

Casey Butt studied 300 natural champions from the past 60 years.

The WeighTrainer - Maximum Drug-Free Bodybuilding Potential Calculator

The WeighTrainer - Maximum Drug-Free Bodybuilding Potential

No calculator or analysis is more accurate that Casey Butt's so it's a great reference point. I've never seen a natural pro surpass Casey's predictions.

I'm not diminishing John McCallum’s charts...just never seen them and wanted to point out what Casey had done...

I would like to see McCallum's chart though if anyone has a link?

BendtheBar 12-19-2010 09:12 AM

By the way, correct me if I'm wrong but Reeve's chart isn't really about bodyfat. It merely presents a nice symmetry goal as a low but healthy bodyfat percentage.

They certainly would be high for modern ripped standards.

But with that said, most people that lift don't compete and are in a perpetual off-season.

glwanabe 12-19-2010 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 100255)
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong but Reeve's chart isn't really about bodyfat. It merely presents a nice symmetry goal as a low but healthy bodyfat percentage.

They certainly would be high for modern ripped standards.

But with that said, most people that lift don't compete and are in a perpetual off-season.

Yes, I believe this to be correct on all counts.

glwanabe 12-19-2010 09:44 AM

Just so we know what we are talking about.

John McCallum’s realistic measurement ideals for hard gainers

1.6.5 times your wrist gives chest girth
2.85% of the chest girth produces the hips
3.Take 70% of the chest girth for the waist
4.53% of the chest gives the thigh girth
5.The neck size is 37% of the chest
6.36% of the chest produces the upper arm girth
7.The calves come out a little less at 34%
8.The forearms get 29% of the chest measurement


Reeves Ideal

Steve Reeves Measurements:

Arms: 18.5 inches
Calves: 18.5 inches
Neck: 18.5 inches
Thighs: 27 inches
Chest: 54 inches
Waist: 30 inches
In his “classic physique” book, Reeves said his formula for “ideal proportions” was as follows:

Muscle to bone ratios:

Arm size = 252% of wrist size
Calf size = 192% of ankle size
Neck Size = 79% of head size
Chest Size = 148% of pelvis size
Waist size = 86% of pelvis size
Thigh size = 175% of knee size
Steve Reeves’ height and weight chart for a bodybuilder (natural)

Height Ideal Weight Height Ideal Weight
5’5” 160lbs 6’0” 200lbs
5’6” 165lbs 6’1” 210lbs
5’7” 170lbs 6’2” 220lbs
5’8” 175lbs 6’3” 230lbs
5’9” 180lbs 6’4” 240lbs
5’10” 185lbs 6’5” 250lbs
5’11” 190lbs

BendtheBar 12-19-2010 09:45 AM

John McCallum’s realistic measurement ideals for hard gainers
 
Thanks to GL for pointing out a link to McCallum:

Quote:

John McCallum’s realistic measurement ideals for hard gainers

1. 6.5 times your wrist gives chest girth
2. 85% of the chest girth produces the hips
3. Take 70% of the chest girth for the waist
4. 53% of the chest gives the thigh girth
5. The neck size is 37% of the chest
6. 36% of the chest produces the upper arm girth
7. The calves come out a little less at 34%
8. The forearms get 29% of the chest measurement

glwanabe 12-19-2010 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Knapp (Post 100232)

Q? At what body fat are these measurements to be taken at? Everyone retains fat different and in different areas.

Plus back in Steve's day they didn't get as ripped as present day natural bodybuilders. So in this point Steve's measurements would be at a month out by now days show prep and stage body fat standards. Thus making them a bit high from his true standard for a modern day stage size.


I'll do some digging Rich and see if I can find a better answer to your question. I have Brawn at home, and there may be some info in the chapter that talks about this.

Rich Knapp 12-19-2010 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 100254)
Casey Butt studied 300 natural champions from the past 60 years.
I would like to see McCallum's chart though if anyone has a link?

Casey also added at what B/F %'s to take the readings at (at roughly 8 to 10% body fat) . :rockon:

So this would be at the start of cutting generally for a bber that dose 2 shows a year, 1 spring and 1 fall were you don't put on a lot of fat between shows. If you do 1 show a year and have a heavy bulk it would be a few months in.

On average 99% of people under estimate there B/F by a good 2-3%. If you do the fames 7 Point pinch test. It will come up with a reading on average 2% lower than your true B/F %. Electric tests like the hand held and stand on's any water and sodium changes day to day will majorly effect the reading seen as it is testing the current flow threw the water, fat and muscle tissue. Junior High Science teaches us that.
The tank dunk test is the ONLY 99% ACCURATE test.

glwanabe 12-19-2010 06:55 PM

I looked through Brawn in the chapter that talks about McCallums ideals. They don't talk about specific BF% for these measurements. They only say a body in a hard condition, rather than a soft one.

That could mean a range of several % either way, but I would think that 12-13% is not out of the question. I think this is a BF% that most people could maintain with some disipline, but not adhering to a super strict diet.

In any case I do think it is a good idea to have some sort of an idea as to what proportion's you should be aiming for. The better your plan, the better the chance you have of success. At any rate these are ideals, and as they point out, very few people are ideal. Not everybody will achieve these stats. Temper your expectations with some honesty about you somotype, but don't let that stop you from busting your butt to achieve 100% of what you are capable of.



Anibal Lopez. very much an ecto type frame. Still the man achieved great success.

http://musclememory.com/images/recent/LopezAnibal.jpg


He looks great on this cover shot. Ripped, with great symmetry.

http://musclememory.com/magCovers/mtis/mtis7901.jpg


Lopez, Anibal

Rich Knapp 12-19-2010 07:19 PM

I found the %'s at the top link BTB posted.

But yes you are right. And I never seen a judge stop a show to measure people. ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.