Ideal Measurements (Chest, Upper Arm, Legs, Calves, Neck)

[blink2000]

So what are the ideal body measurements?

Greco Roman Ideal Proportions / Measurements:
This tool is interesting:
http://www.fitness.com/tools/greek_proportions/

Based on my 7" wrist I get these results:
Your ideal body measurements are:
Chest Size: 45.5
Forearm Size: 13.2
Waist Size: 31.9
Thigh Size: 24.1
Hip Size: 38.7
Calf Size: 15.5
Biceps Size: 16.4
Neck Size: 16.8

it will give you your 'greek' ideal body measurements / proportions. In general, these measures are 'small' based on present day body-building standards.

Steve Reeve's Ideal Measurements
Here's another ideal which I found fascinating:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson207.htm

The best part is where he talks about "The Steve Reeves Ideal Body Measurement". Steve Reeves gives some ideal bodyweight numbers, but I have to say he's wrong on those bodyweight numbers. At 5'10" 185lbs I was built with near perfect symmetry, and I was nowhere near 18" arms, neck, and calves (his ideal). Currently, my arms, neck, and calves are all over 16" but less than 17" (my arms are the biggest, followed by my neck, then calves). I believe at 5'10" I couldn't reach those numbers with anything less than 200lbs. Regardless, I found his other ideal measurements interesting. In fact, most natural bodybuilders in our present day seem to strive for these ideals.

Steve Reeves Ultra-Symmetrical Physique Ratios
Arm size = 252% of Wrist size
Calf size = 192% of Ankle size
Neck Size = 79% of Head size
Chest Size = 148% of Pelvis size
Waist size = 86% of Pelvis size
Thigh size = 175% of Knee size

For the record, Steve Reeves measurement were:
Arms: 18.5
Calves: 18.5
Neck: 18.5
Thighs: 27
Chest: 54
Waist: 30
(source: see link above, also supposedly he weighed 210lbs with these measures)

Here are my results based on these ratios:

My Ideal Measurements (an example):
Arms 18 (based on 7 wrist)
Calf 18 (based on 9.5 ankle)
Neck 18 (based on 23 head)
Chest 47 (based on guess of 32 pelvis, but im not sure)
Waist 28 (based on guess of 32 pelvis, but im not sure)
Thigh 27 (based on 15.5 knee)
Forearms 14 (I hear 14 forearm / 18 arms are 'ideal')

I don't know how to measure my pelvis, so I worked backwards to my lowest waist size ever to come up with a number. At 4.5% bodyfat I had a 28" waist, so thats how I came up with that number. It does seem ridiculous that to have ideal legs they must be almost the same size as my waist. One of my 'ideal' measures doesn't seem to match a ratio that reeves likes. Steve Reeves says having a chest exactly twice the size of each leg is ideal. This might be because I don't know how to measure my pelvis.

As a sidenote, although steve reeves claims he was 6'1" some people that met him say he couldn't be taller than 6' 1/2".

Anyway, I haven't tried to gain size in a long time; I was pretty satisfied with my size in college, but after reading up on bodybuilding subjects lately I have started thinking it would be nice to gain some more mass. I have never been interested in looking like the freakishly proportioned bodybuilders we see these days, but it would be nice to reach some kind of 'ideal'. Even if I don't reach what I consider "perfect proportions" I think it's useful to have goals. Although getting my waist back down to 28" might be difficult or impossible, perhaps 29" or 30" is within reason.

Anyway, what do you guys think the 'perfect' body proportions are? Do you like steeve reeves or the grecian ideal, or do you think something else is more ideal?

[JonasKay]

Very interesting to think of what an "ideal" is. We have the same wrist diameter Blink (7") and so our Grecian Ideal is the same:

Grecian:
Chest Size: 45.5
Forearm Size: 13.2
Waist Size: 31.9
Thigh Size: 24.1
Hip Size: 38.7
Calf Size: 15.5
Biceps Size: 16.4
Neck Size: 16.8

Steve Reeves "Ideal":
Chest: 49
Waist: 28
Thigh: 24
Calf: 16
Arms : 18
Neck: 18

My measurements:
Chest: 40
Waist: 30
Thigh: 21.5
Calf: 15
Arms: 14
Neck: 16

At 5'10" I'm 165 (not the 185 ideal according to Steve) with a body fat percentage around 10% (currently).
A 49" chest with a 28" waist would definitely not be "proportional." I would say Grecian seems more "ideal"...but I guess it's relative. I'd want an ideal that is BOTH functional and aesthetically pleasing. I wonder of Steve's are more aesthetic based? I can't imagine adding 4" in my biceps...

Good post blink...

[Pegasus]

Strength training thickens the waist, so wasp waists are not functional in that sense. Most of these measures might be a lot smaller than bodybuilding, but they would be very hard to achieve natural. If you look at pre ww2 bodybuilders, the best ones might have been around this size.

[blink2000]

I used to get big compliments from girls for having an extreme "V" shaped upper-body. I miss those days sometimes... but hey, there's no reason I can't get back there. If I can't get low enough bodyfat, I suppose I could make up for it with a bigger chest, and bigger arms. I have started thinking I want to reach more ideal body proportions. This is why I did that research on the perfect body proportions / measurements.

Some bodybuilders can have a relative wasp waist, take a look at this:
arnold schwarzenegger: "At his bodybuilding peak his chest was 57", waist 34", biceps 22", thighs 28½", calves 20", and his competition weight was 235 lbs (260 lbs off-season)." http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000216/bio

Or is that different from what you mean by a 'wasp' waist?

[blink2000]

Does anyone else have more thoughts on this? Are these good ideal measurements for a man (Neck, Waist, Chest, Arms, Legs, etc)?

[tamzatank]

Arnold was 270 pounds "blnk 2000" and those measurments you gave dont seem accurate, 57 inch chest? body builders these days are much bigger than arnold and even they are not much bigger than 57 inch chest.

If you want good proportion then, it is, ideal size depends on your size and height.

[Pegasus]

Some of the old bodybuilders did have a thin waist. Look at strongmen and powerlifters etc and you won't see many though. Strength is not a requirment for bodybuilding.

[Sidewinder.a7x]

Arnold was 270 pounds "blnk 2000" and those measurments you gave dont seem accurate, 57 inch chest? body builders these days are much bigger than arnold and even they are not much bigger than 57 inch chest.

If you want good proportion then, it is, ideal size depends on your size and height.

Arnold had the best physic of all time.Well of course the modern BB will be bigger but not one them can compare to arnold

[vulcan]

Arnold had the best physic of all time.Well of course the modern BB will be bigger but not one them can compare to arnold

Agreed, in Arnold's era they still adhered to the classical proportions which is why people will always look at the black & white photos of him & aspire to it.

I think it is the GH that the current BB's take that gives them turtle stomach & a lot of them do not seem able to avoid Gyno in the same way Arnold et al did, presumably because they take much more androgenic steroids & in higher amounts.

I think they should change the rules slightly to push towards a more aesthetically pleasing physique - I doubt it will happen though.

[blink2000]

Yes, I was looking at steve reeves as an 'ultimate' example of what might be possible without steroid use (he had 18.5 arms, neck, calves, 56 chest, 30 waist). I have never used any chemicals (nor do I want to).

Based on that, at least for me personally, I think 18" Arms, Neck, Calves, 52" chest, and 28" legs are all possible for me. My lowest waist size was less than 28" (or maybe less!-- that was just the pant size I wore, and as I recall, they were loose!). In fact, my waist size may have been as low as 26" while I had a 43" chest (at 4.5% bodyfat). Anyway, a 30" or 29" waist is much more achievable for me (I do think I'm bigger now and with more muscle mass that waist size is no longer possible). (my arms, neck and calves are all over 16" and my legs are 25.5 and my chest is about 47--i'm not chiseled yet, but I'm sure I can maintain that size even while I lose weight.. I do think 17" on my arms, neck, and calves are all easily within reach...)

Back to the main topic... I think guys that are too huge don't look good. Arnold (as Vulcan mentioned) kept classical proportions--and that's why he looked awesome, and that's why people aspire to look like him. The Bodybuilders in our day simply look freaky--it's not attractive. My question I guess is, what looks 'good'. Do 20" arms look good on a 5'8" guy? How about 22" arms on a 5'6" guy? I guess more than proportions I wonder what people think is 'ideal'.