Which would you have? 18 inches arms or 28 inches legs?

  • emailaddress

    Posts: 313

    Oct 29, 2008 12:29 PM GMT
    i have seen some of the discussion on the arm size and all that, Just wondering if there is only one choice, would you choose 18 inches arm over 28 inches legs?


    TO me 28 inches legs for sure, cant say no to having a set a beefy legs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 12:42 PM GMT
    Hmm would have to be arms I think and keep my white skinny legs under long trousers.icon_smile.gif
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Oct 29, 2008 12:53 PM GMT
    my legs tend to be naturally a bit thick, i'd rather have the arms
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 5:28 PM GMT
    either way id be a freak.

    id go with the arms though so id never be embarrassed about not being able to open a jar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 5:35 PM GMT
    Hmmm...I'd have to go with 28" legs...I'd look disproportionate with 18" arms!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 6:32 PM GMT
    already close to 27" on my legs...so yeah..18" arms to balance them out would be preferable icon_smile.gif

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 29, 2008 6:37 PM GMT
    Almost there on the legs
    so I'd take the arms
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 6:40 PM GMT
    You mean circumference, and not length, right?
  • Musclebucket

    Posts: 157

    Oct 29, 2008 7:12 PM GMT
    I'm going for 18" legs (length) and 28" arms (circumference)
  • RobbJ86

    Posts: 31

    Oct 29, 2008 7:31 PM GMT
    I would say the 28 inch (in circumference) legs. 18 inch arms are a bit much for most of us. icon_smile.gif Keep in mind, the legs will have a side effect, which is a easier to maintain waist line (abs). The bigger leg muscles burn more energy, even at rest, than the small arm muscles will. Therefore, you can consume more calories and still burn them off. Though, the idea would be to allow the muscles to burn off excess body fat. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 7:45 PM GMT
    If I chose legs, I'd look like a weeble.

    So....arms it is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 7:51 PM GMT
    at my peak I had 32" legs and 18" arms so that was good, now I have a 34" waist and a 3" dick, not as good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 8:23 PM GMT
    9'' icon_wink.gif
  • gymguy81

    Posts: 455

    Oct 29, 2008 9:08 PM GMT
    18" arms seeing my legs are kinda big anyways 23" last i checked
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 9:11 PM GMT
    Wouldn't having one without the other equal or close make you look deformed?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 10:05 PM GMT

    I think even having both is still deformed. (:
    (But that's just me. Carry on.)
  • germanguy888

    Posts: 208

    Oct 29, 2008 10:09 PM GMT
    18in arms definatly!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 10:49 PM GMT
    18" arms, since my legs are already large.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 10:53 PM GMT
    I'd probably look out of proportion with either, since I weigh only about 145. But if I had to take one of them. . . it would be the 18-inch arms.
  • Tyinstl

    Posts: 353

    Oct 29, 2008 10:56 PM GMT
    SAHEM62896 saidYou mean circumference, and not length, right?


    I laughed
  • MattyC0709

    Posts: 1199

    Oct 29, 2008 10:56 PM GMT
    germanguy888 said18in arms definatly!

    Same here! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 10:57 PM GMT
    Tyinstl said
    SAHEM62896 saidYou mean circumference, and not length, right?


    I laughed


    I appreciate that... many thanks

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2008 12:53 AM GMT
    Um...both?
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Oct 30, 2008 12:58 AM GMT
    I think that both would be too big for my body frame. But I would rather have more muscle on my arms than on my legs. I try to not use a lot of weight on my legs because I don't want to have to get custom pants in order to be comfortable. They are already tight enough. icon_confused.gif

    Also, when I used to work them out more, I used to get charlie horses in my legs when I was sleeping....ouch....I know...drink more water...