Creating symmetry

mdigregori

New member
Hey guys,
I'm currently sitting at 5'11 and around 188 on a bulk. I notice that my legs are slightly bigger in proportion to my upper body. My legs are 24" while my arms are 14.5". My arms aren't that small, but my chest and back make my legs look so much bigger than my upper body. I have heard a lot of stuff about you need to work legs to grow other muscles. I was wondering if I could stop training legs for a bit to allow my upper to catch up. Should I train legs less often like very other week? Or not at all. Thanks for the help
 
are you sure youre not just fat? whats youre bf at? 14.5' arms arnt that big on 5'11 188lbs

sry if it sounds mean, just tryin to get some details
 
ThunderHumper said:
are you sure youre not just fat? whats youre bf at? 14.5' arms arnt that big on 5'11 188lbs

sry if it sounds mean, just tryin to get some details
Click to expand...

Strong this. I have 14.9 and 14.6 cold and my arms are in no way large and weigh ~25 lbs leas than you....

And my legs are slightly larger....
 
ThunderHumper said:
are you sure youre not just fat? whats youre bf at? 14.5' arms arnt that big on 5'11 188lbs

sry if it sounds mean, just tryin to get some details
Click to expand...

beat me to it. also not trying to sound mean but worry about getting in shape first then put on some size and then you can worry about symmetry issues. and I wouldnt call 5'11 and 188 fat, maybe skinnyfat but not really fat. now as for symmetry issues my left lat inserts a good inch higher than my right looks kind of goofy but not a whole lot that can be done

also don't stop training legs especially if you're only rollin on 24"s hell my calves are a good 25" and last I checked upper legs were 27.5" also you're legs are supposed to be a good deal bigger than your arms mine sit at 16.5 and 16 cold 18 and 18.5 with a pump and don't look overly disproportionate to my lower body
 
Not fat at all. And sorry I don't weight 188 that was just a reading from a stupid scale. I'm around 183.5 as of this morning. Here's a photo

Invalid Link Removed

Ill get a better set of photos soon
 
There are only two major muscles in the arms (each with multiple heads) + a few synergistic muscles. Then your legs have ALOT of muscles (Quads which is four major muscles, Hamstring group, adductors, abductors etc.) so would you not expect your legs to have more growth potential than your arms?
 
Jiigzz said:
There are only two major muscles in the arms (each with multiple heads) + a few synergistic muscles. Then your legs have ALOT of muscles (Quads which is four major muscles, Hamstring group, adductors, abductors etc.) so would you not expect your legs to have more growth potential than your arms?
Click to expand...

Yes but I'm talking in proportions here. You completely avoided the question. To bring up upper body relative to lower should I stop legs or just decrease frequency
 
Jiigzz said:
There are only two major muscles in the arms (each with multiple heads) + a few synergistic muscles. Then your legs have ALOT of muscles (Quads which is four major muscles, Hamstring group, adductors, abductors etc.) so would you not expect your legs to have more growth potential than your arms?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question I'm talking about proportions here
 
mdigregori said:
Yes but I'm talking in proportions here. You completely avoided the question. To bring up upper body relative to lower should I stop legs or just decrease frequency
Click to expand...

You aren't disproportionate.
 
thyrod said:
**** you really dont look 188 pounds(no insult intended)
Click to expand...

i agree here. you look 165 to tell you the truth. your legs must be huge or something. thatnpicture doesnt really help with your question too much. but you arnt fat lol so point proven on that part
 
ThunderHumper said:
i agree here. you look 165 to tell you the truth. your legs must be huge or something. thatnpicture doesnt really help with your question too much. but you arnt fat lol so point proven on that part
Click to expand...

His legs are apparently smaller than mine according to his original post....
 
Don't stop training legs they are not out of proportion with your upper body, if anything train them and everything else even harder
 
mdigregori said:
Yes but I'm talking in proportions here. You completely avoided the question. To bring up upper body relative to lower should I stop legs or just decrease frequency
Click to expand...

No. If you are that concerned then increase frequency (while simultaneously dropping volume) or increase volume of upper body work. But you arnt out of proportion
 
Not 188. I usually fluctuate around 180. Legs are 24". I am also 5' 11" so if I was 165 I would be skinny as hell. I also have a wide frame
 
mdigregori said:
Not 188. I usually fluctuate around 180. Legs are 24". I am also 5' 11" so if I was 165 I would be skinny as hell. I also have a wide frame
Click to expand...

I am 5'10" 165 and have bigger arms and legs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top