Revisiting Another Early Post

This is an early post from 2009 (have I really been doing this that long?). In it I discuss some of the statistics I gather and calculate. At the time I was being all ee cummings with my capitalization. Please excuse that and enjoy the discussion. 

daryl gee and statistics

daryl gee. short, ripped, muscular guy who likes to show it off. what more can a guy want?

this guy is just a beast. if only his waist and hips were a bit more narrow. then he would have the kind of exaggerated physique that i dream about; like a human morph.

i have, for several years, kept a data base of muscle. in the excel spread sheet, i've noted the stats of men of varying muscularity. height, weight, chest, waist, quads, arms, calves, neck and fore arms. those are the basic numbers. not many of my entries have numbers for all those measures. for some reason calves, neck and fore arms aren't very popular to measure.

but then i have other numbers i've calculated that i find interesting. the first is the least esoteric: the drop. the drop is the difference between the chest dimension and the waist dimension. for example if you have a 40 inch chest and a 32 inch waist, you have an 8 inch drop. the drop is a number tailors use. it determines if a shirt is regular cut or athletic cut. generally a 10 inch or greater drop is considered "athletic".

another number i've tracked is weight in pounds per inch of height. it allows me to compare more readily a tall muscle guy with a short muscle guy. for instance, if a guy is 6 feet tall [72 inches] and weighs 200 pounds, 200 divided by 72 = 2.77 pounds per inch of height. if a guy who is 5'-6" [66 inches] and weighs 190 pounds, 190 divided by 66 = 2.87 pounds per inch. the shorter guy would be, though lighter, more muscular, assuming they had the same bodyfat levels.

another number i've tracked is the difference between the waist size and the arm. the bigger the arm is and the smaller the waist is, the bigger that number is. for example, if a guy has a 32 inch waist and 16 inch arms, the number is 16. but if the guy has a 34 inch waist and 20 inch arms, the number is 14. this is one of the ways i track that exaggeration factor i'm so weird about.

i've also calculated the relative size of men's chests to their height by percentage. like if you're 6 feet tall [72 inches] with a 48 inch chest, your chest is 66.66% of your height. if you're 5'-6" tall [66 inches] with a 46 inch chest, your chest is 69.69% of your height.

there are roughtly 125 different men in my data base. most are professional or amateur bodybuilders. the pro's generally have pound per inch numbers in the 3.3 to 4.6 range [4.6 is sean allan]. the amateurs generally have pound per inch numbers in the 2.8 to 3.5 range. the physique/fitness models/porn stars generally have pound per inch numbers in the 2.4 to 2.8 range.

who said math was dull?

numbers

now that's a chest! it looks like it tapes 49 inches. i suspect, however, if the tape were repositioned so that it was level with the nipples, it might measure about 50 inches.

i've written about my interest in bodybuilder statistics before. but lets look at the chest number.

in my data base, by no means exhaustive, but with over 120 entries, the biggest chest size i have recorded is 70 inches. that's 5'-10" to you and me. who's chest could possibly by that large? sean allen's chest. he's 6'-4" and tips the scales off-season at over 350 pounds. i think that this chest size must also be off-season. an interesting statistic here: his chest measures 92% of his height!

the next biggest chest size i have recorded is bruce patterson: 58 inches. that is 4'-10" around. he's 5'-10" tall and weighs 270 pounds. again, i think these are off-season sizes. his waist is 32 inches. comparing his chest size to his height: his chest is 83% of his height.

the third largest chest in my data base belongs to the man, whose name escapes me at the moment, who has the biggest biceps in the world [27 inches around!]. his chest measures 56 inches and he tips the scales at 235 pounds. however, he is only 5'-6" tall. his waist is only 29 inches around [can you imagine biceps nearly as big as is waist!?]. comparing his chest size to his height: his chest is 85% of his height.

the top ten largest chests in my data base are all greater than 49 inches. the heights of these herculean men vary from 5'-3" at the low end [with a 53 inch chest] to sean allen's 6'-4". the drop, the difference between the chest size and the waist size varies from as small as 16-1/2 inches to sean allen's positively freaky 30 inches. i seem to remember that the average man has about a 6 or 8 inch drop. if your drop is 10 inches or better you are considered "athletic" by the fashion industry. their chest vary from 72% to 92% of their heights.

the second group of ten in my data base have chests that measure between 48 inches and 49 inches at heights varying between 5'-4" and 6'-1". the waists on these men vary between 28 inches and 34 inches and drops between 14 and 21. their chests vary from 63% to 75% of their heights.

if you look at all these numbers: height, chest size, waist size, drop and chest's percent of height, the man with the most impressive body, the most extreme chest is sean allen. i would like to get ronnie coleman's statistics to see how he compares, or ruhl's.

i don't know if it is possible, but i wonder if any bodybuilder has ever managed to build up his chest to equal or even exceed his height? wouldn't that be incredible!? i try to picture what a friend of mine would look like, his 5'-9" height matched by a 69 inch chest. even if his 34 inch waist thickened up to 36 inches, he'd have a 33 inch drop!

the ideal muscle man would, in my mind, have a chest equal to his height, arms aproaching his waist size, thighs bigger than his waist and calves equal to or larger than his arms. i haven't sorted my data base by waist size so i'm not sure how determine the "ideal" waist size. i have calculated the waist to height ratios for all these entries, but haven't sorted by that. The top 20 big chested men all have waists that vary between 38% of their height to 53%. given my preference for a big drop/tiny waist, i'm guessing the waist should be less than 40% of their height.

i like muscle men who are shorter than i am. so my ideal muscle man would be, for arguments sake, 3 inches shorter than me: 5'-6" tall [i'm 5'-9"]. this ideal fantasy man would stack up like this:
height: 5'-6" [66" tall]
chest: 66" [100% of his height]
waist: 26-1/2" [roughly 40% of his height]
thighs: 28" or more
arms: 24" or more
calves: 24" or more

can you imagine him? my guess is that he'd weigh between 250 and 275 pounds.

woof!

daryl gee and statistics

daryl gee. short, ripped, muscular guy who likes to show it off. what more can a guy want?

this guy is just a beast. if only his waist and hips were a bit more narrow. then he would have the kind of exaggerated physique that i dream about; like a human morph.

i have, for several years, kept a data base of muscle. in the excel spread sheet, i've noted the stats of men of varying muscularity. height, weight, chest, waist, quads, arms, calves, neck and fore arms. those are the basic numbers. not many of my entries have numbers for all those measures. for some reason calves, neck and fore arms aren't very popular to measure.

but then i have other numbers i've calculated that i find interesting. the first is the least esoteric: the drop. the drop is the difference between the chest dimension and the waist dimension. for example if you have a 40 inch chest and a 32 inch waist, you have an 8 inch drop. the drop is a number tailors use. it determines if a shirt is regular cut or athletic cut. generally a 10 inch or greater drop is considered "athletic".

another number i've tracked is weight in pounds per inch of height. it allows me to compare more readily a tall muscle guy with a short muscle guy. for instance, if a guy is 6 feet tall [72 inches] and weighs 200 pounds, 200 divided by 72 = 2.77 pounds per inch of height. if a guy who is 5'-6" [66 inches] and weighs 190 pounds, 190 divided by 66 = 2.87 pounds per inch. the shorter guy would be, though lighter, more muscular, assuming they had the same bodyfat levels.

another number i've tracked is the difference between the waist size and the arm. the bigger the arm is and the smaller the waist is, the bigger that number is. for example, if a guy has a 32 inch waist and 16 inch arms, the number is 16. but if the guy has a 34 inch waist and 20 inch arms, the number is 14. this is one of the ways i track that exaggeration factor i'm so weird about.

i've also calculated the relative size of men's chests to their height by percentage. like if you're 6 feet tall [72 inches] with a 48 inch chest, your chest is 66.66% of your height. if you're 5'-6" tall [66 inches] with a 46 inch chest, your chest is 69.69% of your height.

there are roughtly 125 different men in my data base. most are professional or amateur bodybuilders. the pro's generally have pound per inch numbers in the 3.3 to 4.6 range [4.6 is sean allan]. the amateurs generally have pound per inch numbers in the 2.8 to 3.5 range. the physique/fitness models/porn stars generally have pound per inch numbers in the 2.4 to 2.8 range.

who said math was dull?

my ideal body

once, a long time ago, i trained as a bodybuilder. in my very best shape ever, i had a reasonably muscular physique.

i'm 5'-9" tall. in my best shape ever,
i was 176 pounds,
with a 33" waist.
a 44" chest
with 16" arms
and 25" quads
at about 8% bodyfat.

at my biggest and fittest,
i was 205 pounds,
with a 34" waist,
a 47" chest
with 17-1/2" arms
and 26" quads
at about 12% bodyfat.

most guys would be satisfied with either of those builds. i never was. i wanted to achieve the "three L's: large, lean and limber". i was never large enough or lean enough. and we won't talk about the limber.

i like a physique with exaggerated proportions. i think for most people into bodybuilding, that's true. bodybuilding is all about exaggerating the body's muscle size. but what i mean, is extreme exaggeration.

the body i was shooting for, the body i really wanted would have been more like this:
225 pounds
32" waist,
50" chest
19" arms
27" thighs
at around 10% bodyfat.

never got there.

when i dream about the body i want, this is what i want:
same height, 5'-9" is good.
weight? i don't know. whatever it takes to achieve this:
26" waist,
50" chest
28" thighs
20" arms
at around 6% bodyfat.

that's imposible.

now, years later, with my body limited by injuries and having not worked out in years, we won't talk about my current condition. but i find myself thinking about getting back into the gym and working out again. other than losing the weight i've gained and generally getting closer to "fit", i fantasize about training to exaggerate one or more muscle group.

a couple years ago i went back to the gym with the same idea and i tried to focus my training on my arms. i wanted big ass biceps. i wanted biceps that would be "too big" for my body. that didn't last too long. turns out i have tendon issues in my left fore arm and the arm training only made them worse. that was so discouraging, i stopped going to the gym.

so, here i am on the verge of returning to the gym. in addition to dropping some pounds, for the sake of my heart and my back, not to mention my appearance, i want to train some muscle group to exaggeration. which one?

let's consider the alternatives:
arms: given the ongoing tendon issues, no can do.
chest: possible. i'd love massive muscle pecs protruding from my chest like a shelf. i do have old injuries to both shoulders, however, that would limit my chest work.
shoulders: unlikely. the shoulder injuries just won't allow it.
abs: possible. i'd love a cobbled, washboard stomach, but is that exaggerated? and lets face it, they aren't great "show" muscles.
back: possible. a dramatic "V-taper" would rock. but again, not a great "show" muscles.
quads: possible. i just think tom platz or paul demayo. i'd love great tree trunk thighs. but i have bone spurs in both knees. that could limit my training.
calves: possible. i used to fantasize about having calves so big that they'd press against one another when i put my feet together. not a great "show" muscle, but imagine the gasps and stares when i wore shorts.

there is also the possibility of training to create the illusion of exaggeration. i mean bodybuilding is all about minimizing your short comings and maximizing your positives. for instance, if i worked my chest and my abs, presumably my shrinking waist and growing pecs would make my pecs look even bigger. similarly with quads and abs.

at the moment i'm tending toward working both my chest and my abs for that reason. but if my old shoulder injuries start acting up, i'm thinking i may focus all my attention on my calves.

i really don't know.

once i've moved house and am closer to the gym and my money has sorted itself out, i'll set back to the gym and we'll see what happens.