Arm size BS

It's getting silly again. Writers are allowing themselves, or indulging themselves, with lines such as 'Mr X, with his 24-inch arms...'. I mean get the F out of here! Guys DO get heavy in the off season but do the maths - the videos and photos shots we see are when most guys are in good to hard condition. So a number based on a 300lb off-season body is given as the in-shape number.

But even then it's off. If one of the bigger guys - close to 6 feet or better say - and with patently bigger arms than the far shorter guys why then am I seeing 5 feet 6 to 5 feet 8 guys weighing 30, 40 and even 50lbs less claiming arm sizes of 24 inches??

Many years ago and possibly I still have the clipping in my collection the Sun newspaper (or Mirror??) printed a life-size photo of a flexed Lou Ferrigno arm. This would be between the Hulk series time frame and when he, at 6 feet 5, bulked up to a claimed on stage 320lbs. With those numbers in mind he 'only' claimed a 24-inch arm. So how will someone weighing 90lbs less have the same and yet their arms do not look half as big again considering the frame to which they are attached??

The truth is as it always has been - bodybuilding arms, ripped and vascular, look more muscular and when they have peak and shape too tied in with a small bone structure then visually they will look absolutely amazing and perhaps look as big as is being claimed. But the reality is as it always has been. Guys weighing, at best, 230lbs (as bodyweight numbers are often fake too) on an average height trainee will be no more than 20" max. Indeed often less.

Some of the best arms in history as voted for by fans on bodybuilding websites have been way less. Even as low as 17-inches! Yes 17. And 17, on an average frame, is very, very good. Especially so if the body is lean.

So save me from the BS please guys. Just say 'it's a hell of an arm' or similar. Don't attach some fake number to it.