FORUMS > Body Building Forum Rules

I read recently that if you wanna gain one inch on your biceps that you need to gain at least 10lbs. That's what it would weigh. That seems a lot to me. What do you think?

How quickly do you think that would take to achieve anyhow? It seems like I've been stuck at 15.5 biceps for the last two years now even though I'm lifting heavier and heavier weight. Hmmmmmmmmm...some times I get sooooo f@#kin' frustrated tryin' to figure this all out!

Dude, it is soooooo simple, predictable, and formulaic to calculate exactly what each of us has to do to achieve highly specific body changes. Basically:

BoarderX saidDude, it is soooooo simple, predictable, and formulaic to calculate exactly what each of us has to do to achieve highly specific body changes. Basically:

Sigh...too bad I didn't pay attention in math! LOL!

I think I tended to get an inch for every 10Kg ie 22lb. Its the same for my neck growth.

I'm no scientist nor am I very good at math but it doesn't seem like 10lb would be required. When you think about it spatially per linear inch we're talking centimeters added to every linear inch of your arm that makes for a total a 1 inch increase. I can't see how that would add up to 10lb.

misterduck said

BoarderX saidDude, it is soooooo simple, predictable, and formulaic to calculate exactly what each of us has to do to achieve highly specific body changes. Basically:

Sigh...too bad I didn't pay attention in math! LOL!

haha. he's being facetious; that's not biology it particle physics.

o yea, the post.

incidentally, measuring muscle in that way isn't measuring distance, it's a rudamentary methodology of measuring muscle volume. if you increase the circumference of a cup by one inch, you are increasing it's capacity for volume significantly. and muscle, being dense, is a heavy material.

ten pounds doesn't sound like a wild estimation. though, given the cup analogy, it seems like the actual weight is dependant on the length of your muscles, not just the girth.

Well I think it sounds like alot too. Although if you are gaining 1 inch on the biceps, you are gaining it usually on both arms, and there must be some increase in shoulders as well. But, head to the store and pick up a 10 lbs roast - that's alot meat.

I think also that one cubic foot of flesh is 47 lbs. That would put 10 lbs of muscle at about 12"x12"x2.55", more than enough to add an inch to your biceps.

I'm not sure that one cubic foot would total 47lb. Wait, are you talking in terms of clumping all the skin of a person into one 3 dimensional square cubic foot? How would that apply to adding an inch to the arms?

badtouch said

misterduck said

BoarderX saidDude, it is soooooo simple, predictable, and formulaic to calculate exactly what each of us has to do to achieve highly specific body changes. Basically:

Sigh...too bad I didn't pay attention in math! LOL!

haha. he's being facetious; that's not biology it particle physics.

True, it is derived from string theory. But in 10 dimensions your biceps appear much larger.

How about lifting heavy in bicep curl, basic with a straight bar, then doing really heavy reverse curls (palms facing down), then Hammer Curls ( thumb facing up), then hard triceps? The old fashioned way I know but it has worked since 1930. John Grimek, Larry Scott, ect. Big arms are about big lifting and smart lifting. Curl a big weight. Do it many times. Wow, you get a big arm. But 3/5 of arm is triceps anyway. Lift heavy, with good form, and you will have big arms.

For workouts I recommend not to overwork them. They can't take the amount of volume for say a chest or leg workout. I usually do 4 exercises per body part and do 4 sets total for that body part. But or arms I do no more than 8 total sets. So that's basically 2 exercises I chose to work with and I do them for 4 sets. The most I'll ever do is 9 sets but currently I'm doing a program where they get 6 total sets. I choose two exercises for biceps and two for triceps and do 3 sets for each muscle group.

My advice, Duckmeister, is to ignore all these simple "rules of thumb." They are absolutely meaningless and worthless.

If you really want a formula to determine what to do, then, like the guys before have said, you need to leap right past quantum chromodynamics and into string theory.

Boarder-

You may be a math wiz, but you are completely wrong. Arm size is volume, but not all that goes into that volume weighs the same. So lbs and volume are not so easy as to put into a mathematical equation. In fact, it shows that you are better at math than bodybuilding. Muscle is mostly water, but not all muscle has the same water content. Plus, size can also be bodyfat, which weighs different from muscle.

Do fast twitch fiber and slow twitch fiber weigh the same? Do tendons and ligaments weigh the same as fat or muscle? So, does a high bodyfat 20" bicep weigh the same as a ripped pure muscle 20" bicep? Plus, weightlighting makes your bones denser. Does your calculation take that into account?

Just one man's opinion.....

I got big arms by lifting weights. Never thought about the science until much later. Want big arms? Lift big weights. When you reach 18" and you want that next 1", then worry about specifics and technique and science and whatever. Until then, just lift big weights. Basic curls, basic reverse curls, some hammer curls. That is all the bicep does, really. Lift as heavy as you can for 6-8 reps. Then do it again. Don't overthink it. Back, you can overthink that, it is complex. Biceps do one thing. Pull the forearm towards the upperarm. And triceps, cause they are 3/5ths of the arm. But that is another discussion.

muscletussle saidI think I tended to get an inch for every 10Kg ie 22lb. Its the same for my neck growth.

When I staterd lifting my biceps were 15 inches and I weighed in at 180, I know weigh 200 and my arms are 16.

I read that for overweight men every 10 pounds they lose gains them an inch in dick length for penetration. As a top that should be incentive enough!!!