Who has the Best arm's in Bodybuilding

[MaDmaN]

Friday fun...Who do think has some of the best arms..I like Lee Priest...His Arms are unreal plus he trains them twice a week 6-8 reps and get this, 20 sets...Im gonna try it!!!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I saw the title of the thread, and immediately thought of Lee Priest. No arguement here.

 

[Edge]

I always felt mike matarazzo had the greatest arms in the business. Awesome proportion

 

[T-Bone]

Friday fun...Who do think has some of the best arms..I like Lee Priest...His Arms are unreal plus he trains them twice a week 6-8 reps and get this, 20 sets...Im gonna try it!!!

The routines in the magazines are useless!. The reason the pros are so big is because they are on un-godly amounts of steroids!. They are rich, and don't even have to make or plan out their meals. Someone does that for them!. The only thing they have to do is life the weights!. Everything elese is paid for!

 

[MaDmaN]

The routines in the magazines are useless!. The reason the pros are so big is because they are on un-godly amounts of steroids!. They are rich, and don't even have to make or plan out their meals. Someone does that for them!. The only thing they have to do is life the weights!. Everything elese is paid for!

They are not useless IMO,I feel my biceps are lagging with doing 6-8 sets,what do i have to loose trying something different..Nothhing.Im not saying i need 20 sets but maybe 15.I tried this with triceps and calves and they exploded..I try to keep an open mind about what I read but before I say its bullshit I will at least try it...

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Someone does that for them!. The only thing they have to do is life the weights!. Everything elese is paid for!

Have you ever though about the fact that they were'nt always pro's? They are pro's for a reason.

Try to follow a plan that is set up for any IFBB pro and you will see its not just "lifting weights".

The programs aren't useless but the simple fact that 20% is about training and the rest is nutrition.

You can follow any training program but if you don't eat right, you won't get jack **** from it.

 

[prld2gr8ns]

Priest gets my vote as well!!

 

[stryder]

Good point Bobo...they had to work up and continually win shows to qualify to get their pro card. You don't just jump into the circuit and become pro...

 

[MaDmaN]

I am learning a vauable lesson here...How many years have I read stuff on eating every two hours and waking up at night to drink a shake and thought to myself,that's not going to make that of a much difference.Then I tried doing just that and it has made all the difference in the world.It's the little basic fundementals that have made a huge difference,Looks like the Holy Grail is right under our noses we just need to pay attention and apply it..

 

[PreMier]

Lee Priest is amazing, but I am going with Ahhhnold

 

[Harland]

no one likes greg valentino?

 

[T-Bone]

no one likes greg valentino?

His are synthol!

 

[Jarconis]

I think levrone has the best arms.

 

[Edge]

No one agrees with me eh lol :run:

 

[dickwootton]

I think levrone has the best arms.

Im with you jarconis.
Dick

 

[mauibuilt]

flex wheeler in his prime

 

[Jayhawkk]

Priest having 21 inch arms in contest form on a 5'5" frame and you have no comparison. Pries all the whey(hehe)

 

[EEmain]

Sergio Oliva

 

[Jstrong20]

I also thought of priest before I even opened the thread. Arnold has great biceps but his triceps suck. LOL thats why almost every pic you see of him his arm is bent. Levrone has the great triceps and shoulders but has no peak on his biceps. Ronnies has freaky biceps and triceps but doesn't have the cuts or asthetics of preist. Almost forgot sergio. He has no peak on his bicep either.

 

[Redspy]

Of the classic bodybuilders I think Bertil Fox rates highly.

 

[Bean]

Friday fun...Who do think has some of the best arms..I like Lee Priest...His Arms are unreal plus he trains them twice a week 6-8 reps and get this, 20 sets...Im gonna try it!!!

hate to burst your bubble but the #1 reason pros are so big is because of genetics...

you can talk of roids and nutrition all you want; if you dont have the genetics they have; you will NEVER EVER EVER even come CLOSE to getting that big

 

[Dwight Schrute]

hate to burst your bubble but the #1 reason pros are so big is because of genetics...

you can talk of roids and nutrition all you want; if you dont have the genetics they have; you will NEVER EVER EVER even come CLOSE to getting that big

Hate to burst your bubble but....


Please explain how genetics plays a role in in breaking genetic limits because thats what gear does.

The reason they are using gear (several grams per week) is because they are breaking the limits of their own genetics. Once past that point your natural genetics no longer play a role in how big you are. Once they go off, they shrink just like everyone else. So sorry, there are plenty of guys as big as the pro's withouth the genetics. The role genetics plays is more proportion than anything. Just look at the difference bewteen Coleman and Ruhl. Both are huge, both use enormouse amounts of gear but Coleman blows him away because of proportion, not size.

Both Arnold and Coleman have great genetics. One is using about 4 grams of gear per week not to mention GH/Slin/IGF-1 and the other is using a couple dbol and some primo. One is 280 while the other is 245. There is your difference. Both have great genetics but both are worlds apart in the amounts of type of gear they are using. Sorry, genetics won't make anyone 280 and 4%bf, only grams of gear will do that.

 

[acecombact1]

Ahmed Haider arms are great also

 

[Beelzebub]

Like most guys here, when I think arms, I think Priest.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Wouldn't genetics be something along the lines of having a headstart on the restr and using AS just passes that?

So in the long run a guy who has normal genes uses gear and someone with above normal genes uses gear on the same workouts etc. Wouldn't the guy with better genes still come out on top?

 

[coofoostu]

Lee Priest is amazing, but I am going with Ahhhnold

Thats a sweet pic, i think Arnold is the bicep king.

 

[Iron Warrior]

the #1 reason pros are so big is because of genetics...

Did you Craig Titus was a skinny puke who weighed 140 when he started getting serious about lifting. Genetics certainly do help, but they are not a limiting factor

 

[DieTrying]

Lee Preist does have the greatest biceps. However, I think when a lot of people see his pictures, they don't realize how freaking short his arms are. I've seen them in person..he is very, very short.

Arnold had great biceps but his tris and forearms suck..Just look at that pic posted above. Forearms are lagging behind big time. Just my opinion.

 

[DieTrying]

hate to burst your bubble but the #1 reason pros are so big is because of genetics...

you can talk of roids and nutrition all you want; if you dont have the genetics they have; you will NEVER EVER EVER even come CLOSE to getting that big

Bean before we make this thread any longer than necessary, please read this thread > http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16698&page=1&pp=30

 

[Bean]

Hate to burst your bubble but....


Please explain how genetics plays a role in in breaking genetic limits because thats what gear does.

The reason they are using gear (several grams per week) is because they are breaking the limits of their own genetics. Once past that point your natural genetics no longer play a role in how big you are. Once they go off, they shrink just like everyone else. So sorry, there are plenty of guys as big as the pro's withouth the genetics. The role genetics plays is more proportion than anything. Just look at the difference bewteen Coleman and Ruhl. Both are huge, both use enormouse amounts of gear but Coleman blows him away because of proportion, not size.

Both Arnold and Coleman have great genetics. One is using about 4 grams of gear per week not to mention GH/Slin/IGF-1 and the other is using a couple dbol and some primo. One is 280 while the other is 245. There is your difference. Both have great genetics but both are worlds apart in the amounts of type of gear they are using. Sorry, genetics won't make anyone 280 and 4%bf, only grams of gear will do that.

so you're saying I could be 250lbs at ~6% bodyfat if I run enough gear... sorry dude i wont believe that... i really thought you understood this bobo since i've seen your pics of how small you were back in the day... just to let you know, i was a good bit smaller; especially in bone structure...
these are the genetics I speak of.. 4" wrists and 5.5" ankles? i was 6'1 130lbs and i had a little bit of muscle in my legs from playing soccer... so if i really had sat around and done absolutely nothing i would have been around 120-125

genetics determine your natural limit and the hazy limit when using steroids

maybe i've missed something completely here, did some new study come out that I missed? i'm serious here and not trying to be a jackass; but from all the threads and articles i've read here over the years and at other respected boards; its that genetics plays a role in the mass you can put on; natural or not

i've read the other thread; thx for the headsup... i guess i'm just missing something here; i'm probably the most ectomorphic person on this board; if you want to post skinny pics i will throw down and beat all of you... i know my bones will not handle 80-100lbs of muscle mass; my skeletal frame will increase in size, but not that much

 

[good_guye28]

Im going with preist also........... the man is unreal

 

[BigVrunga]

so you're saying I could be 250lbs at ~6% bodyfat if I run enough gear... sorry dude i wont believe that... i really thought you understood this bobo since i've seen your pics of how small you were back in the day... just to let you know, i was a good bit smaller; especially in bone structure...
these are the genetics I speak of.. 4" wrists and 5.5" ankles? i was 6'1 130lbs and i had a little bit of muscle in my legs from playing soccer... so if i really had sat around and done absolutely nothing i would have been around 120-125

genetics determine your natural limit and the hazy limit when using steroids

maybe i've missed something completely here, did some new study come out that I missed? i'm serious here and not trying to be a jackass; but from all the threads and articles i've read here over the years and at other respected boards; its that genetics plays a role in the mass you can put on; natural or not

i've read the other thread; thx for the headsup... i guess i'm just missing something here; i'm probably the most ectomorphic person on this board; if you want to post skinny pics i will throw down and beat all of you... i know my bones will not handle 80-100lbs of muscle mass; my skeletal frame will increase in size, but not that much

That's why you need IGF-1 bro!! It makes everything grow! Just kiddin' I hear you, a friend and sometime workout partner of mine is built like you. 6'4 135lbs and works very hard just to stay at that weight. 100% ecto. I would say that a copious amount of gear used in conjunction with a proper diet would surely pack on some serious lbs, but he'll never be a massive freak.

I think that if you ate enough and used enough gear, you could definately hit 200+ lbs ripped. But, like you said, your bones and joints might not be able to take the stress of that much of an increase in mass and strength in such a short amount of time.

Both Arnold and Coleman have great genetics. One is using about 4 grams of gear per week not to mention GH/Slin/IGF-1 and the other is using a couple dbol and some primo. One is 280 while the other is 245. There is your difference. Both have great genetics but both are worlds apart in the amounts of type of gear they are using. Sorry, genetics won't make anyone 280 and 4%bf, only grams of gear will do that.

Imagine if Arnold was on the gear that the pro's use today!! I still say he has one of the best developed physiques of any bodybuilder...

BV

 

[LCSULLA]

Arms I am going with Segio and John Grimek.

 

[canadian champ]

genetics determine your natural limit and the hazy limit when using steroids
)

gene regulation is mainly controlled by hormones...and steroids are exogenous hormones.
cc

 

[g4ud1n]

Darrem Charles

 

[Nullifidian]

Genetics determine:

Proportion
How well you respond to different steroids
How prone you are to negative side effects (your tolerance for higher doses)
How quickly you build muscle naturally
Your predisposition for losing fat
Your ability to retain muscle while not on cycle


No matter what you take, there is still a genetic factor. Take my roomate and I for example. If genetics played no role, then he and I could be the same size. However, he is an ectomorph and I'm endo/meso. I can build muscle just by mowing the lawn. He has trouble gaining any weight training heavy and eating 6000+ calories a day. He weighed 135 pounds 4 weeks ago. I put him on M1T 10mg ED and 4AD trans 600mg ED. He started with the 4AD first, then after a week on it, he added the M1t to the mix for 2 weeks. He gained ....... 2 pounds. Sure he had some body recomp as well, but not much weight gained at all, and M1T is powerful stuff; everyone will agree.

Then there's me. On M1,4ADDiol, 1-Test trans, and 1,4andro I gained 27 pounds in 4 weeks. 25 of those pounds were gained the first 3.

You're telling me that genetics aren't a factor?!

 

[LittleChina]

Excellent post Null. Genetics are the #1 factor (it's what we are). I don't see how people can dispute this? By saying this I do not mean that if someone works very hard they can't attain a great physique but with gear or not some people just will not go as far, this along with asesthetics. The Endo/Meso vs. Ecto is a prime example.

And yes, I am aware I am a newbie here.

 

[LittleChina]

I agree on Priest. I am a huge Flex Wheeler fan though!

 

[John Smeton]

for his size ...lee preist

i agree arnold has the best bis in that picand many other pictures

 

[Dwight Schrute]

gene regulation is mainly controlled by hormones...and steroids are exogenous hormones.
cc

Exactly.


And Bean, you don't have to believe anything if you don't want. Thats ashame that is the attitude you take. Genetics play a role up to your natural limit, after that when you use gear and the excessive amounts that pro's use today, you break genetic limits. Its that simple. So instead of stating that genetics are the determining factor, at least understand how genetics play the role.

I just love how people state how genetics play such a role but if you ask them to explain why, they have no clue. Its called hormones. And that is not directed at you or trying to be a wise ass. Its just I see the same complaint and arguement everyone on these boards. Its mainly from people who eat like ****, and use way too much gear.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

i'm serious here and not trying to be a jackass; but from all the threads and articles i've read here over the years and at other respected boards; its that genetics plays a role in the mass you can put on; natural or not

i've read the other thread; thx for the headsup... i guess i'm just missing something here; i'm probably the most ectomorphic person on this board; if you want to post skinny pics i will throw down and beat all of you... i know my bones will not handle 80-100lbs of muscle mass; my skeletal frame will increase in size, but not that much

YOu can read all the articles you want, but that is becaus emost of the people who write them have many more problems than genetics. Go look at any other board and look how many people post in the steroid sections compared to the nutrition section. If they paid more attention to their diet they might actually get great results and stop looking at genetics as their crutch for failure.

Its very simple. Nutrition is boring to most people. They don't want to plan meals, and eat properly. They would rather plan cycles and use enormous amounts of gear. Then when they don't get the results they want, its "I just don't have the genetics"

BS!!

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Genetics determine:

Proportion
How well you respond to different steroids
How prone you are to negative side effects (your tolerance for higher doses)
How quickly you build muscle naturally
Your predisposition for losing fat
Your ability to retain muscle while not on cycle


No matter what you take, there is still a genetic factor. Take my roomate and I for example. If genetics played no role, then he and I could be the same size. However, he is an ectomorph and I'm endo/meso. I can build muscle just by mowing the lawn. He has trouble gaining any weight training heavy and eating 6000+ calories a day. He weighed 135 pounds 4 weeks ago. I put him on M1T 10mg ED and 4AD trans 600mg ED. He started with the 4AD first, then after a week on it, he added the M1t to the mix for 2 weeks. He gained ....... 2 pounds. Sure he had some body recomp as well, but not much weight gained at all, and M1T is powerful stuff; everyone will agree.

Then there's me. On M1,4ADDiol, 1-Test trans, and 1,4andro I gained 27 pounds in 4 weeks. 25 of those pounds were gained the first 3.

You're telling me that genetics aren't a factor?!

Wrong.

Genetics determines hormone levels which facilitate those mentioned above. People seem to think genetics is some entity that has no explanation. Wrong. Some people have high levels of testosterone, DHT, T3, etc.....and they have them the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. THAT is why people grow faster or lose fat faster than others. Its hormones. Ask any geneticist. And that is the kindergarden version. We don't even want to start talking about gene regualtion and expression. Well I bet cc wants too

And you also seem to be missing the point that both of you are not even close to your genetic limit. Pro's are well above.

Nobody said genetics aren't factor so please stop making this a black and white issue. Of course they matter but if it took you 10 years to get to 250lb at 6% it might take him 20. Then when you are both maintaining levels of muscle that are well beyond your natural limit, genetics takes a back seat to grams of gear. We were talking about pro's here right? If you want to talk about genetics with pro's then realize that they are well above their natural limit and main factor genetics has then is on proportion, not muscle gain.

 

[John Smeton]

very true eating and cooking is a PAIN IN THE ASS ....but if you want results you must do what it takes ....even if you dont feel like it. its not about how we feel its about what gets us results

 

[John Smeton]

and when we get results we will feel alot better than bicking over our feelings and not getting results ......lmaoooooooooo are you with me?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Excellent post Null. Genetics are the #1 factor (it's what we are). I don't see how people can dispute this?

Its understanding why genetics have a factor. When you understand this, you realize its hormones and the subsequent effects they have.

 

[cr4ytonic]

Wrong.

Genetics determines hormone levels which facilitate those mentioned above. People seem to think genetics is some entity that has no explanation. Wrong. Some people have high levels of testosterone, DHT, T3, etc.....and they have them the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. THAT is why people grow faster or lose fat faster than others. Its hormones. Ask any geneticist. And that is the kindergarden version.

And you also seem to be missing the point that both of you are not even close to your genetic limit. Pro's are well above.

Nobody said genetics aren't factor so please stop making this a black and white issue. Of course they matter but if it took you 10 years to get to 250lb at 6% it might take him 20. Then when you are both maintaining levels of muscle that are well beyond your natural limit, genetics takes a back seat to grams of gear. We were talking about pro's here right? If you want to talk about genetics with pro's then realize that they are well above their natural limit and main factor genetics has then is on proportion, not muscle gain.

:goodpost:

I don't understand why people can't grasp this, everyone wants to blame something else for their problems I guess.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

i've read the other thread; thx for the headsup... i guess i'm just missing something here; i'm probably the most ectomorphic person on this board; if you want to post skinny pics i will throw down and beat all of you... i know my bones will not handle 80-100lbs of muscle mass; my skeletal frame will increase in size, but not that much

Bean, your 6'1 170 at age 23. You know how young that is?!?! I wasn't even that when I was 23. In all sense and purpose your metabolism is still flygin high like mine was. Just wait until your metabolism slows down and you start packing on weight like itsa nothing. It didn't even start for me until I was 25!!!!

 

[BigVrunga]

Amen brother - I was a toothpick until I hit 25 as well. As soon as I learned how to eat - 55lbs in less than 2 years. A lot of guys who are hard core ecto's should find that its easier form the to pack on lbs once they approach their 30's.

Exactly.


And Bean, you don't have to believe anything if you don't want. Thats ashame that is the attitude you take. Genetics play a role up to your natural limit, after that when you use gear and the excessive amounts that pro's use today, you break genetic limits. Its that simple. So instead of stating that genetics are the determining factor, at least understand how genetics play the role.

I just love how people state how genetics play such a role but if you ask them to explain why, they have no clue. Its called hormones. And that is not directed at you or trying to be a wise ass. Its just I see the same complaint and arguement everyone on these boards. Its mainly from people who eat like ****, and use way too much gear.

Definately. And dont forget products like HGH and IGF-1, creating muscle cells that arent even supposed to be there in the first place. Now that's overcomming genetic boundries.

BV