What do you consider BIG MUSCLE?

[Lifter73]

Hey guys,

Just wondering what you consider a BIG MUSCLE guy? For me, the cutoff to being a big muscle guy/bodybuilder is around 230-240 pounds, and bigger is good! And I have had regular people that were not into bodybuilding tell me that I am too big (260), and others that think cut and ripped at 200 or less is an ideal.

What do you think?

D

[gogr2]

I think it depends on height... a solid 200lbs on a guy my height (5'6") definitely qualifies as big. However, 200lbs on a guy who is 6'4" is not. My rule of thumb to be considered big is you must be at least 3 times as heavy as you are tall in inches (e.g. 66" tall must be at least 198lbs to be considered big).

On that note... the bigger the better.

[Absman420]

Hmmm... by that formula, I would be big at 219. I'm 230 right now and still don't think I'm big enough. One of my students DID say I was "jacked" the other day...

Bigger the better. I want to be at least 250.

[arpeejay]

Well, then there's the difference between BIG and HUGE.

I'm pretty big (215 @ 5'10 1/2") but I'm not HUGE. I'd have to be 240-250 to feel like I was huge (but I'd need to have a lot more in my chest, shoulders, and arms than I did when I was 230-235.)

As Gogr says, it depends.

xoxo

Richard

[CelticMuscle]

I work on the proportion theory, and for me the scales are:

Small: Less than 1lb per inch of height
Average: Between 1lb and 2lb per inch of height
Big: Between 2lb and 3lb per inch of height
Enormous: Between 3lb and 4lb per inch of height
Huge: More than 4lb per inch of height

[cozman]

Originally Posted by Lifter73

Hey guys,

Just wondering what you consider a BIG MUSCLE guy? For me, the cutoff to being a big muscle guy/bodybuilder is around 230-240 pounds, and bigger is good! And I have had regular people that were not into bodybuilding tell me that I am too big (260), and others that think cut and ripped at 200 or less is an ideal.

What do you think?

D

I would consider your stats to be the crossover point from "Big" muscle to "Huge" muscle. I would also consider your stats to be the starting point for what I consider an ideal muscleman.

[xythan_shadow]

If they can engulf me in a bear hug, they are huge. If they can give me a really good one, they are big.

Specific, aren't I?

[Lucas88]

Originally Posted by gogr2

I think it depends on height... a solid 200lbs on a guy my height (5'6") definitely qualifies as big. However, 200lbs on a guy who is 6'4" is not. My rule of thumb to be considered big is you must be at least 3 times as heavy as you are tall in inches (e.g. 66" tall must be at least 198lbs to be considered big).

On that note... the bigger the better.

It absolutely depends on height! 200 pounds on my 6'5' frame...well, can you say "BEAN POLE"??? Luckily I haven't seen 200 since I was 18. Even using gogr2's formula of 3 x height, I'd only weigh 231 pounds and that equates to Lifter at 200 in my mind...haven't seen that in a while, either. I'm at 270 pounds of pretty solid muscle but I'm still not enormous by Celticmuscle's standards (3.51 pounds per inch). The problem with the pounds per inch is it doesn't take into consideration the volume and/or mass of muscle...when you add height into the mix, the body shape can change pretty dramatically.

For example (and excuse the math here, I'm tired), my favorite bodybuilder is Lee Priest (gotta LOVE that chest!!!) at 5'4" and 230 pounds. That's 3.59 pounds per inch (Lifter, you're about 3.68 pounds per inch???). At 3.59 pounds per inch, I'd only weigh 276 pounds...been there, done that (last week?) and DID NOT look like Lee Priest even though it was still mostly muscle! For me to even THINK about walking onto a bodybuilding stage, I'd have to weigh 350+ pounds and I still wouldn't have the proportions of a Lee Priest...do any of YOU want to pay that grocery bill ???

Lifter, 260 pounds on a 5'11" frame is pretty freakin' big if it's muscle...huge? enormous? Give me a bear hug and I'll tell ya!

[viamanmax]

The thing about this kind of calculation is the relationship between pounds of body mass and inches of height will be nonlinear. That is it will be something like height cubed times some multiplier.

For example since as you get taller in order to have the same build you also have to be bigger in both width and thickness you would see an increase something like this.

For shorter guy 66 inches tall (5'6):
Constant*66^3 = Constant*287496

If a big guy at 5'6 is 200 pounds then the constant equals 0.000696.
0.000696*66^3 = 0.000696*287496 = 200 pounds

For taller guy 72 inches (6'0):
Constant*72^3 = Constant*373248
0.000696*72^3 = 0.000696*373248 = 260 pounds

For even taller guy 78 inches (6'6):
Constant*78^3 = Constant*474552
0.000696*78^3 = 0.000696*474552 = 330 pounds

That would mean that the 5'6 guy only weighs 77 percent of the weight of the 6' guy. In contrast to a linear system where the guy weighs something like 3 pounds per inch so for a 6 inch increase he would only weigh 18 pounds less or he would weigh 92 percent as much regardless of the weight per inch.

I hope this makes sense to everyone if not I can try and be more clear. The constant multiplier though can be easily changed to any values in order to get a different build or therefore body mass. If a guy measuring 69 inches tall weighed 190 then the multiplier is simply 190/69^3 or 190/328509 or 0.000578.

My last note is that though this formula would be correct if people purly scaled larger while staying in exactly the same dimensions, in reality even for the guys one would lable as huge or something, I would think they might not quite grow as much horizontaly as vertically so the power number might be more like 2.5 or something rather than 3.

[arpeejay]

Well, this is what I get for having been a total DOPE at math! Viamanmax, MANY THANKS for explaining what I've been tinkering with for the past, oh, 35 years or so, namely, "Richard's Rule of 10," which states that for each additional inch of height add 10 lbs. (except that you need to add / subtract proportionately less for shorter and taller.)

5 ft = 150 lbs.
5'6 = 200 lbs.
6 ft = 260 lbs.
6'6 = 330 lbs.

Which pretty much sums up off season Branch Warren (5'6, 270 lbs.) and offseason Art Atwood (5'11, 320 lbs.) and gives you a nice basis of comparison for Lee Priest (5'4, 250 offseason) and Noah Steere (6'6, 350.)

Thanks again!

xoxo

Richard

[CelticMuscle]

Which merely confirms what I have always thought:

You don't need a PhD in math to bodybuild, but it can help!

[viamanmax]

No problem, I am glad I could help.

Though, now that I did that i realize since I am 6 feet tall I need to gain 70 pounds to actually be big by these numbers. Damn, now I feel small.

[arpeejay]

Actually, 6 ft and 260 is HUGE, if you ask me, not big. Big at 6 ft is 220+

:-)

xoxo

richard

[DaBigGuy1]

Very interesting thread... I better work on getting bigger!

Ron III---III

[TheMM]

Originally Posted by arpeejay

Actually, 6 ft and 260 is HUGE, if you ask me, not big. Big at 6 ft is 220+

:-)

xoxo

richard

Holy hell...I've got a lot of work to do then. IF big at is 220 and above, I need 70 pounds of muscle to be that, let alone be huge!

[ilimzn]

Actually, you need to look at things so that all proportions remain equal. This means that increasing height by say 10% must also increase width and breadth by the same percentage, so viamanmax is correct.
It follows that volume (which is proportional to mass) scales up with height to the third power (or, as per example, 10% more meaning an increase times 1.1, volume increases 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 = 1.331, which is 33.1%).
Lets consider Lee Priest as huge, at 5'4" tall and 230#. I am almost 6'4" tall so 1.1875 times as tall as Lee. In order to be huge like him I woul dneed to weigh 385# !!! and I only weigh 265 so definitely not huge. Yet
This however does not account for general body type. Shoulder to waist ratios, small vs large joints, even head size and haircut can create a rather different illusion (which is BTW one of the reasons many BBs shave their heads!).

[Jace]

ow!! BRAIN..........hurting....too much math!!

[Lucas88]

Originally Posted by ilimzn

Actually, you need to look at things so that all proportions remain equal. This means that increasing height by say 10% must also increase width and breadth by the same percentage, so viamanmax is correct.
It follows that volume (which is proportional to mass) scales up with height to the third power (or, as per example, 10% more meaning an increase times 1.1, volume increases 1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 = 1.331, which is 33.1%).
Lets consider Lee Priest as huge, at 5'4" tall and 230#. I am almost 6'4" tall so 1.1875 times as tall as Lee. In order to be huge like him I woul dneed to weigh 385# !!! and I only weigh 265 so definitely not huge. Yet
This however does not account for general body type. Shoulder to waist ratios, small vs large joints, even head size and haircut can create a rather different illusion (which is BTW one of the reasons many BBs shave their heads!).

ANOTHER huge grocery bill!!!

[nypup2train]

Originally Posted by drew

hmmm...well at 5'9 I'm 240 right now. I'm decent, but I don't feel huge.

Good! You're never supposed to feel huge! It runs the risk of diminishing your motivation to keep growing bigger! (And that's not allowed as long as we're in charge here.)

That being said, assuming a sufficiently low bodyfat % to make your body composition "athletic"/"lean", I'd be *damn* impressed if you could manage to be 240# at that height at not BE huge!

-Pup (Licensed Exhibiologist, Voyeurs' Association of America)

[hecad84]

Naturally, when I chat about working out with other muscle friends, the question of what my goal is comes up. Truth is, I'm not sure what my goal is. For me personally, I'm not into the offseason or freaky bodybuilder look. The lean and defined look is where my interest lies, though I do want some bodybuilder size. I mean I want to be defined, but bigger than just the fitness model look. I am 6'1", and am thinking of 220 lbs at 6-8% bodyfat. I'm curious what your opinions are.

[wolfotehmoon]

Throwing my hat into the ring :P The only time I ever automatically think "HOMG huge!" is when I see a 3 followed by two other numbers x3 Maybe high 270's and up. So, even though I'm only 180 lbs (at 5'7.5"), and anyone from 230 up could put me in critical condition with a moderately hard tackle, they're only "really, really big" or "or a lot bigger than me" in my mind.

Of course, I'd love to hit that "huge" mark myself one day, but at my height it might be nigh impossible without years of busting my ass and possibly seriously jeopardizing my health... It's fun to imagine though x3 Atleast 200 isn't far off

[cccatl]

You guys might be interested in the "Fat Free Mass Index" developed by the authors of "The Adonis Complex." The index attempts to quantify "muscularity."

The formula is: FFMI = LBM/H^2 +6.1*(1.8-H). FFMI=Fat Free Mass Index. LBM=Lean Body Mass (kg). H=Height(m).

Online calculator at: http://www.naturalphysiques.com/tools.php?itemid=28

I once looked up the stats of a couple of favorite fitness models and bodybuilders. Fitness Models: 24<FFMI<27. Pro bodybuilders: 27<FFMI<31 (Jay Cutler, Ronnie Coleman). I don't know of anyone greater than FFMI=31.

[DragoniteXY]

I still think it mostly depends on body type and overall build, rather then pure mass or bodyfat percentage.

My ex was 197cm and 115kg and still looked bigger then myself (190cm and 121kg) - he just had better build, his 43cm upper arms still look bigger then my 47cm (curse the genetics!).

Plus, a guy with big biceps and pecs always looks bigger then the guy with big legs and lats.

So, it's all relative.

[philat99]

I didn't note bone structure as a variable, yet one of the biggest differences I see between big and massive by other definitions is the bone mass and structure which is able to support and enhance muscle to varying degrees. Just another thought.
Mike

[BIGJOEY]

great post I am 5-9 249 rigth now and still think i am average. lol i know. 19.5a 34w 29q 50c but i still want more. like 285-325
I compete so i am driven to gt massive. besides like the bigger more massive muscle. If i was 6ft 1 i would aim fro this guys size
he is 6-1 320 lbs

YouTube - Ed Van Amsterdam - Training Video (1/3)

take a look, u tell me

[arpeejay]

Just FYI:

5'9 and 250 lbs. is bigger than most Mr. Olympia winners.

xoxo

Richard

[arpeejay]

And, yes, Ed is VERY huge, VERY hot!

xoxo

Richard

[philat99]

for the VanAmsterdam vid. Found the other two which are equally impressive:

YouTube - Ed Van Amsterdam - Training Video (2/3)

YouTube - Ed Van Amsterdam - Training Video (3/3)

If you like the really big guys, he's surely one of them!!!
Mike

[worshipper]

one word, perfection. Love the type that mass up to 300, or @ least try.

[Mdlftr]

Originally Posted by BIGJOEY

great post I am 5-9 249 rigth now and still think i am average. lol i know. 19.5a 34w 29q 50c but i still want more. like 285-325
I compete so i am driven to gt massive. besides like the bigger more massive muscle. If i was 6ft 1 i would aim fro this guys size
he is 6-1 320 lbs

take a look, u tell me

....The man's a freakin' brick wall!

I loved the chest and shoulder workouts! I do those same exercises, but I don't look like that! 'Course, it could have something to do with the fact that Eddie outweighs me by 110#......

And howza about the kiss on the lips from his shaved-head training partner? It occurs around 7:26 or so. Obviously, not many people watched this, or we would've gotten a whole string of posts deconstructing the significance of "male on male" kisses. In this case, it's guys trying to psych each other out. His bud comes over and kisses him on the lips right as he's trying to concentrate on a set of leg presses. Funnee!

Mdlftr

[hulkoutlvr]

It depends on the mood I'm in and what I"m hoping to accomplish with the guy. If I'm wanting to admire his body as a thing of beauty, someone in the neighborhood of 190-210 is a great size. I'm 5'3-5'4 depending on who you ask, so anything over 5'10 to me seems huge. If I'm just wanting to say, 'he's beautiful' or 'he's hot'. I love an athletic, baseball-player's physique. If I'm in a sexual mood, or as I like to say, looking to 'put the tickle in the pickle', then all bets are off as far as mass. My ultimate fantasy is a guy somewhere in the neighborhood of 285-300 pounds solid. I'm not a huge fan of ripped. Basically I don't think there's any such thing as too big. If I can put my hands on it, it's not too big, lol.

Oh, and if that 285-300 is on a guy anywhere from 5'8- 5'10, all the better.

Sorry to rant, but I have very specific muscle tastes.

[Stoneman]

I think it has less to do with how much you weigh and more with what you do with it.

[sl97aq]

I knew a big guy in high school who was 6 foot 4 and 240 pounds in Grade Nine. And I knew a football player who was 6 foot 6 and 260 pounds. Those were big guys, but they were really nice as well.

[wesman123]

I have a neighbor kid 13yo 6'4 223lbs solid as a brick does boxing, and martial arts, plays basketball baseball and of course weigh-lifts at the high-school.

[Lucas88]

I'm with Stoneman...muscle is muscle whether it's on a tall guy or a little tank. It's how he's proportioned for his height and how he moves that works for me.