Arm Size and calves correlation?

[epimetheus]

I read somewhere, though I cannot recall where, that Bicep size is dependent on your bodyweight overall. I vaugely remember reading somewhere that your arms (bi's and tri's) should be the same as your calves. I think it was the same article. (can't find it now)

My dilemma is that I have genetically HUGE calves. I achieved ~12% BF recently, and reached 15 inch arms. Nothing spectacular. Except my Calves are 18 inches. I don't even train my calves often. Once every other week or so. My calves seem so out of proportion. At 12% BF my legs are 23 3/4, and my calves are almost as big. Or it seems.

So my question is this- Should my arms be the same as my calves?


Epimetheus- Whom hopes that his calves will not grow until his body catches up.

 

[gettinlarger]

Well, seems you have been blessed genetically. Your calves, I mean.

And yes, it is correct proportionally for people's arms/calves to be very similar in size.

You're lucky man. Calves like that are hard to come by.

 

[TheProject]

I don't know if that's true or not, but I'd like to have 18" calves.

Oh, and good to see you epi.

 

[louden_swain]

Arms are calves are supposed to be about the same size.

 

[WarriorPL]

Same deal here.... 15" arms, 18" calves.

 

[Citruscide]

Arms 17.5"??? Calves 18.5"??? -- somewhere around there last measure...

C-ditty

 

[Fatty4You]

I have heard that calves and arms and neck are all supposed to be approximatedly the same size. But, then i head some judges saying one time that the calves are far enough away from the rest of the body parts they are compared to [arms in particular] that they can be disppraportionately big and it won't look out of place.

Regardless though, i have NEVER looked at disproportionately big calves and thought "Gee, that doesn't look good." Most of the time i just think "wow, i wish i could have calves like that."

-Fatty

 

[BlkWS6]

Yeah consider it a blessing. As stated above no one really notices or comments if your calves are bigger then your arms. Now if it is vice versa, everyone automatically assumes that you dont train legs at all and that you are just one of those upper body beach muscle guys. Which may be true in some cases, but then on the other hand some people bust their ass on calves all the time and don't see any growth mostly due to a good ole genetic shafting.

 

[jeremys]

mine are about the same; a fat 18-19''

 

[epimetheus]

Thanks Project. How is it going?

I found these interesting sites on another board:

http://www.weightrainer.com/meascalc.html : measures the supposed maximum natural size based off of height and wrist/ankle size. According to this site, with at 5'9, with 7 inch wrists and 9.5 inch ankles, at 10% bodyfat, I should have these measurements-

Chest: 47.9 in
Biceps: 16.7 in
Forearms: 13.3 in
Neck: 16.7 in
Thighs: 26.2 in
Calfs: 17.5 in

I guess losing 2% more bodyfat my calves will go down 1/2 inch. Wonder if I train them if I will surpass my maximum.

According to the same website, but different calculator at:
http://www.weightrainer.com/weightcalc.html

At 10% bodyfat, without anabolics, my max weight for my size is 200.1 lbs. Damn, was hoping to hit 215 too. (at 180lbs now)

Wonder how accurate these are...