I've been avoiding asking this question so that I don't sound stupid, but better to look a fool and learn.
Basically, I need to associate the measurements with some benchmark images. For example, a 20" bicep - what does that look like? 56" thighs? 200lbs body weight? At the moment, they're numbers that don't mean much to me except "it's BIG".
I don't follow bodybuilding, that's why I'm clueless. I just need some benchmarks, then I'll be able to figure out what bigger and smaller bodies look like.
Any help is much appreciated. Thankies.
Bee.
[quote author=mikazuki link=topic=3429.msg29663#msg29663 date=1152697287]
I've been avoiding asking this question so that I don't sound stupid, but better to look a fool and learn.
Basically, I need to associate the measurements with some benchmark images. For example, a 20" bicep - what does that look like? 56" thighs? 200lbs body weight? At the moment, they're numbers that don't mean much to me except "it's BIG".
I don't follow bodybuilding, that's why I'm clueless. I just need some benchmarks, then I'll be able to figure out what bigger and smaller bodies look like.
Any help is much appreciated. Thankies.
Bee.
[/quote]
I'm not quite certain what you mean, if you mean visual examples of height, weight and sculpted proportions, you might want to try the WPW web site or AMG-Lite, they often, but not always, cite a given model's stats in the bio section.
http://www.wpw.net/
http://www.amg-lite.com/
I'll also add, the stated weight alone isn't a very good benchmark to go by, since bodybuilding can be very illusionary in appearance - i.e. a person might seem huge, but in fact weigh less then you might assume or reverse it, be smaller and yet paradoxically heavier.
As for a female with 20" biceps, the only one that I can think of that comes close (maybe has reached that mark by now) would be Renee Torney.
Yes, thank you, stats+pictures is what I'm looking for. Even better would be something like a pic with the common stats for that particular pic (even approximate is okay, just to give me an idea). It doesn't have to be a female bodybuilder, I just want to grasp the size.
I understand the issue about body weight, so I'm looking for some basic examples. For example, if a person who is 5'11" and weighs 160 lbs looks like this in a photo, then when I read of a character who's 5'3" but also weighs 160 lbs, I'll know that this character's muscles & bones should have that much more density than the 5'11" person. The sites you've given show the weight+height stats, so that's helpful, thank you!
To be frank, I tend to shy away from numbers alone, since that alone isn't descriptive or give me any REAL clue on how big. I usually result to real-thing comparisons. Like…
Thighs as big around as extra-large pizzas.
An arm with baseball-sized biceps… uh, croquet-ball size… nope, sorry, volleyballs… uh soccer balls… basketballs?
Although 24" around is supposed to be that of a Raquel Welch/non-waif model's WAIST…
Thanks Jimmy. I can handle object comparisons. Unfortunately, I've found that I can't always rely on that. Sometimes writers describe the size in measurements, and I go (@_@)~huh??
scribbles in notebook Raquel Welch = 24" waist. Thanks!
If ya'll do wish, dear friend, I's can send you some photographs and biographies as references.
Please, do let us know.
Peace
Neon
Doesn't Gina Davis have 20 inch arms? I don't remember but she looked pretty darn close to it!
lol Collector, she very well may have 20" -now-, but on season she's more like 17".
now excuse me as I go around the house with a tape measurer (I'm actually about to do this right now, hehe)
Before I start rambling the measurements though, let it be known that whenever somebody goes "they have 17" biceps, dood!", that's not going around the bicep alone lol, since you can't do that. That's the length around from the highest peak of the bicep, all the way around the tricep, and back to that peak. That 17" is bicep, tricep, and bone, so it'd be more appropriate to say "17" arms".
trip around the house
Alrighty! lets see if this gives you an idea, object-wise
My computer monitor, not flat screen, is just shy of 58" around
A "medium sized" beach boucy ball, probably about the height of one's abdomen, is about 44" around
A firm (as in pretty much fully inflated) foot ball, but not official size, is about 19 1/2" around
And a mostly inflated, but not playable (not inflated enough to bounce, but enough to look like a mildly dented ball) "official size" basket ball is about 29" around
If you don't have those hanging around at home, I'll try something a bit "unconventional", that I'd never use in stories lol
A CD/DVD is a bit over 4 1/2" in diameter, you'd use that for pectoral thickness measurements or something lol
A 50 pack of CDs/DVDs, layed on it's side (as in, not standing up, but ready to roll), is exactly 16" around. That'd be an inch thicker than the average female body builder's bicep.
lol this one is kinda strange, somebody left a quarter(says so on the label) of a watermelon out of the fridge, so I measured it at the longest point, around the rhine, and that came out to be something like 7.75" long…since it's a quarter, I just multiplied that by 4 (I love you, geometry!) and voila, this whole melon would have been 31" around if it were still whole!
Hope that helps at least some…hehe we should make a "FMG writer's measurement comparision encyclopedia"
EDIT: For height/weight comparisions, check out this site, although I'm not sure how accurate it is… http://www.halls.md/chart/height-weight.htm
Generally, as I've been able to notice - fitness athletes arms are around 13-15", with bodybuilders being 15". Bigger bodybuilders are 16", and 17" is really big indeed. Anything past 17" is pretty much a record for an fbb.
For men, the biggest of the big just pass 20", maybe 23" or 24" being the biggest.
Some synthol or implanted freaks exceed that number, but they're rare and false.
So, that should give you an indication of size.
Also, what's worth noting, is height plays an important role. For example, Michelle Ralabate, in her prime, had something like 15" biceps. Impressive, but she was very, very short. I think she was barely 5 feet tall. If she had been more average in height, say 5'6" or so, her arms would be approximately 17". The measurement is fine, but really, you could make 20" look like 15" if the person was almost 7 foot tall.
Hopefully that helps.
I think Tina Lockwood was around 18 inches biceps wise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGjkOj06y3I
As for her tree trunks, they measure at 30 inches off season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NI9yazapDk
Neon: Thank you! I look forward to it.
Collector & Maniac: Thanks! Good opportunity to learn a few more FBB names. (Those vids are GREAT!)
Debido: I hope you had fun! (Sounds like you did). And yes, that helped lots 
Fett: Thanks for the observations. The BB measurements you gave were for competition size, yes? … Actually, do bicep measurements change for on/off season? (I can't imagine much fat for the peaks of the arm) :
I have a much better idea of the upper body now. Any chance of some figure ranges for the legs? These seem to double/triple the arm stats, which makes me go (x_x)~ack
Off season, I think, generally, some women add an inch or two, but they obviously lose definition.
As for legs - I think anything above 27" is big for a fbb, but I'm not too sure. For some reason, it's the arms that everyone goes for.
if i remember correctly reneè toney has 19-20' arms..
°_° (unfortunately she is not very cute on her face 
)
Here's a picture of Tina Lockwood at 5'6". She weighs about 180 lbs here and had 17" arms, 27" thighs and 19" calves.
Here are some general things I've learned. Arms will get bigger but smoother and not as peaked in the off season if they don't loose muscle mass.
For every inch taller she'd gain 15 pounds or so.
For every real 1 inch increase in arm measurement you'd have to add 15-20 pounds of muscle.
I did a similar study when I was trying to drawn muscular female characters from stories for practice. Seeing as arms and legs have an approximately circular cross-section I found that I could convert circumference type measurements to width type measurements by dividing them by pi (~3.1416). Using ideal (Gina Davis) stats as an example:
Height = 5'5"
Upper Arms = 17"
Forearms = 12"?
Thighs = 27"
Calves = 17"
Converting each girth measurement to a width and then assuming Gina Davis is about 8 heads tall we get:
Upper Arms ~ 2/3 head
Forearms ~ 1/2 head
Thighs ~ 1 1/5 head
Calves ~ 2/3 head
I tested it out on this picture and it came out about right
http://www.amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.stronggirlz.com/GinaD/Pics/Gina2704.jpg
This approximate relationship is independent of figure height and the width values should scale proportionally if you want to play around with symmetry. Eg, for the lovely Tina Lockwood above, the width of her calves would be closer to 3/4 head.
I understand that head measurements aren't for everybody, but for me it helps get the proportions right in the early stages, especially when you're also trying to take things like foreshortening into account.
Anyway, I eagerly await your next work.
Thanks for the interesting stats & observations 
Now, where's a calculator when you need one mumble mumble grabs mobile phone … oh wow, that works! Nifty, thanks Mr Super-genius Reason.