Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Is it possible to be enormous but w/o legs?

  1. #1
    The Bottom Line
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    174

    Is it possible to be enormous but w/o legs?

    Many of us has seen guys with no legs, but for my case those big guys with large upperbodies but pathetic wheels are just relative big at about 190-200 lbs max. Maybe around 17'' arms and 23" wheels. However my question is, is it even possible for a really HUGE guy like lets say 240 lbs 10% BF with 50+" chest, 20" arms to have really small legs?

    Cause in order to be that big, they must surely eat like mad, so even if they hardly train their legs, isn't is natural for their wheels to grow naturally to a decent size as well?
    Change is good.

  2. #2
    Gym ratt/Part-time pimp LAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    0
    if there is no stimulation to the lower body there is no reason for hypertrophy to occur there. there would be minimal growth in the lower body in relation to the upper

  3. #3
    Hungry BCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1
    Yeah, I know dudes well over 220 pounds at like 5'9 with all out twigs for legs.
    "As far as drugs were concerned, all my bodybuilding heroes were on everything but roller skates."


    In Memphis, it is illegal for a woman to drive by herself, unless a man is walking or running infront of the vehicle, waving a red flag in order to warn approaching pedestrians and motorists.

  4. #4
    Determined
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    59

    Yea...

    Its called roids.

  5. #5
    Hungry BCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1
    Not quite, king ignorant.
    "As far as drugs were concerned, all my bodybuilding heroes were on everything but roller skates."


    In Memphis, it is illegal for a woman to drive by herself, unless a man is walking or running infront of the vehicle, waving a red flag in order to warn approaching pedestrians and motorists.

  6. #6
    3:16
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,254
    they can get to 240 pounds. but if they had done legs they would have weighed like 250 pounds instead. plus they can wear shorts and not look stupid.
    my exprience - joined gym 10 years ago, 6 1/2 years hard weight training exprience.

  7. #7
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,732

    Re: Is it possible to be enormous but w/o legs?

    Originally posted by Victor
    Many of us has seen guys with no legs, but for my case those big guys with large upperbodies but pathetic wheels are just relative big at about 190-200 lbs max. Maybe around 17'' arms and 23" wheels. However my question is, is it even possible for a really HUGE guy like lets say 240 lbs 10% BF with 50+" chest, 20" arms to have really small legs?

    Cause in order to be that big, they must surely eat like mad, so even if they hardly train their legs, isn't is natural for their wheels to grow naturally to a decent size as well?
    Well, for starters, it would be difficult for someone with poor genetics in their legs to get that big in the upper body. I assume you are referring to the upper legs. Most people with thin upper legs don't have great upper bodies either (without training). So, if someone with a thin body started working out and was able to build their upper body to the point where they were 240 lbs, I would think they would have decent legs as well, even without training them. The body grows as a whole to a certain extent. If someone weighs 240 lbs at 6' or less, they cannot help but have some leg development (as you mentioned). I actually have a very good friend who is the perfect example of this. My buddy Cliff has an incredible upper body (HUGE arms). His legs, while not being strong points, do not look out of proportion. He does train his legs, but with nowhere near the intensity (or frequency, or resistance) of his upper body due to 2 serious knee injuries. Cliff stands about 6'1" and weighs 240+ lbs with low bodyfat.

    Now, Cliff has awesome overall genetics (he does NOT use tissue building drugs). I think a trainee with average, to below average overall genetics would not be able to build their upper body to the point that they weigh 240 lbs without the use of tissue building drugs. I remember a substitute teacher in my high school who had a great upper body, big and lean (he loved to wear tight polo shirts), but he had no legs. I mean he had stick legs! One look at him made it obvious he was a steroid user (I know the look users have, believe me). I feel that his genes were such that he could not have achieved the size he had without drugs. He obviously did not train his legs with the same intensity of his upper body, thus with the drug use and hard training he ended up with the cartoon bodybuilder look. I believe it would be tough to achieve that look without the use of drugs.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    127
    I just wonder why anyone who considers themselves a bodybuilder, would WANT to be big on top, but have no legs to speak of....

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    185
    well, many of these people probably don't consider themselves BB's. They just want a big upper body.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Accipiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    layin up against a dumpster in a 100 dollar jumper, smothered in southern comfort.
    Posts
    4,076
    body image.

  11. #11
    Journalist galileo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    9,289

    Re: Yea...

    Originally posted by Pjsb
    Its called roids.
    No chase, I suppose he is right. I would have a lot of trouble lifting with my lower body if I had roids. OUCH.

  12. #12
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6
    just a thought:
    People have to carry their upper body weight with their legs so there's at least one reason why 'normally' the legs will be somewhat in proportion with the rest of the body..
    -=still working on a nice signature=-

  13. #13
    Hot as FCUK Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    In Denial
    Posts
    0
    Before I ever started lifting I had calves that measured 16 inches... mostly from genetics but also from carrying around my 260 pound butt. On the other hand, I have some friends at the gym that started getting huge but were also skinny kids when they were younger and they just can't come close to my size with their legs.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •