I guess this is a somewhat rhetorical question, because the answer seems kind of obvious... but here goes anyway:
If you have a longer wingspan, you should probably expect slower size gains with your arms, correct? My chest, shoulders, back, neck, and legs have all grown noticeably on my current program, but the arms just seem to be the slowest gainers of them all. I am a tall guy, 6'4", and I have a ridiculous wingspan of 6'8"... so I'm thinking that's the real reason for it.
Anyone else in this boat? Will I never have Dave-Tate-style guns?
__________________ You're not the only one improving yourself... I worked out with a dumbbell today -- I feel vigorous!!!
Yeah...but it makes your guts look smaller...huh...lanky guys!
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable. -- Sidney J. Harris
I guess this is a somewhat rhetorical question, because the answer seems kind of obvious... but here goes anyway:
If you have a longer wingspan, you should probably expect slower size gains with your arms, correct? My chest, shoulders, back, neck, and legs have all grown noticeably on my current program, but the arms just seem to be the slowest gainers of them all. I am a tall guy, 6'4", and I have a ridiculous wingspan of 6'8"... so I'm thinking that's the real reason for it.
Anyone else in this boat? Will I never have Dave-Tate-style guns?
I don't buy it. Your arm is longer. It should have more muscle fiber than the same arm that is shorter in length. So, why does long mean less gains?
I agree you have a slight biomechanical disadvantage, but we are not taking about how much weight you move, we are talking about gains in size and strength.
I've got similar issues with my legs. They're actually decent size, but with their length, they look small. It's more of an optical illusion than anything else. My wife calls them chicken legs. But I can't wear normal pants, they're tight and uncomfortable. I've been buying dress pants becuase they are more baggy. Same goes for jeans...only carpenter or loose fit jeans.
But you have to admit...being tall is cool!
__________________
Two Bears Dadda? Two Bears Benno, just two. ______________________________ ___________
There are three things in my life which I really love: God, my family, and baseball. The only problem - once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit. ~Al Gallagher, 1971
I've got similar issues with my legs. They're actually decent size, but with their length, they look small. It's more of an optical illusion than anything else. My wife calls them chicken legs. But I can't wear normal pants, they're tight and uncomfortable. I've been buying dress pants becuase they are more baggy. Same goes for jeans...only carpenter or loose fit jeans.
But you have to admit...being tall is cool!
agree, it'd be a little shocking if they weren't growing (ie you're measuring and everything else is growing but your arms). if that was the case I'd look at the program. they may not LOOK bigger, there you're kinda f*cked.
Do you have high insertion points? If your muscle belly is higher up on your arm, that also tends to make your arms look smaller. That's part of my problem... high insertion points. Good for lifting heavy stuff, but not as pleasing to the eye as lower insertion points.
__________________
Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't.
It will take a lot more to make your arms look bigger. I was looking around at a bunch of bigger guys, mostly shorter, and their shoulder to elbow length was about 3" shorter than mine. To me, their arm will look a lot bigger because the muscle is shorter.
I'm in this club too. Although I'm only 5'10", I have very long arms, and the length is primarily between my shoulder and elbow. Damn genetics. LOL.
__________________
"Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you are right." - Henry Ford
"UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." - Dr. Seuss
"Life is no brief candle to me. It is sort of a splendid torch which I have got hold of for a moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations." - George Bernard Shaw
I don't buy it. Your arm is longer. It should have more muscle fiber than the same arm that is shorter in length. So, why does long mean less gains?
I agree you have a slight biomechanical disadvantage, but we are not taking about how much weight you move, we are talking about gains in size and strength.
For one thing, the bone length may play into your body type and may be a factor in whether you are an ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph and, hence, affect the way you gain mass. Also, I don't know if it's true that just because you have a longer arm you actually have more muscle fibers. That would be an interesting tidbit to find out. Another thought that may have some bearing is the attachment of muscle to bone in a long vs short armed person. This can affect things like the biomechanics as well as things like the shape of the muscle, for example, the type of peak a bicep might be able to achieve. I also wonder if there is any difference in the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch fibers between long limbed and short limbed people. These are all just things that come to mind on this topic and I hope the experts will chime in so I can learn a thing or two. Just a few thoughts.
__________________ In Fitness & Friendship, MAHLER
______________________________ __________________________ There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You carry the light with you.
Mahler, you are right on track with all those thoughts. And to answer milkman's question is really impossible because there are too many variables in each particular individual. Even if your arms have grown relative to the rest of your body (and they probably have) it might not show because the growth is spread over a longer distance. Genetics determine insertion points of muscles, which affects how much they will peak. You can make a muscle bigger, but you can't change the basic shape it comes in.
The biomechanical disadvantage might make it harder to achieve significant loads to produce growth. Not make it impossible, just harder.
But I've never seen anything that talked about different muscle fiber types being related to length of a limb.
As you can imagine, I know what you mean. However, on the flipside, when we weigh more we're going to look like monsters as opposed to the shorter people who pile on the pounds and just look 'stocky'.
__________________
Our doubts are traitors,
And make us lose the good we oft might win
By fearing to attempt.
Anyway, I have seen size gains in my arms, but I do think that for a 1-inch gain on my arms would look much less impressive than on someone who has, say, a 5'10" wingspan obviously. That's all I'm getting at, I suppose.
__________________ You're not the only one improving yourself... I worked out with a dumbbell today -- I feel vigorous!!!
For one thing, the bone length may play into your body type and may be a factor in whether you are an ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph and, hence, affect the way you gain mass. Also, I don't know if it's true that just because you have a longer arm you actually have more muscle fibers. That would be an interesting tidbit to find out. Another thought that may have some bearing is the attachment of muscle to bone in a long vs short armed person. This can affect things like the biomechanics as well as things like the shape of the muscle, for example, the type of peak a bicep might be able to achieve. I also wonder if there is any difference in the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch fibers between long limbed and short limbed people. These are all just things that come to mind on this topic and I hope the experts will chime in so I can learn a thing or two. Just a few thoughts.
All good points, with the exception of slow twitch vs. fast twitch part - I don't believe the genetically predisposed balance of the fibers has any link with height...then again, I doubt anyone has tested a link. Just does not seem in anyway related, IMHO.
Anyway, I have seen size gains in my arms, but I do think that for a 1-inch gain on my arms would look much less impressive than on someone who has, say, a 5'10" wingspan obviously. That's all I'm getting at, I suppose.
An inch is an inch... but you're right. My 16 inch arms will "look" bigger than your 16 inch gunz.
__________________
Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't.
I'm in the club, too. 6'9" wingspan, 6'5" tall w/out shoes on. I also have long tendons (short attachment?) where if I flex on a curl, its 2" of tendons before the muscle. It's a chore to put on muscle on my upper body.
I don't buy it. Your arm is longer. It should have more muscle fiber than the same arm that is shorter in length. So, why does long mean less gains?
I agree you have a slight biomechanical disadvantage, but we are not taking about how much weight you move, we are talking about gains in size and strength.
except a lot of time gains in size=less weight moved.
I'm tall and lanky, and anyone who is will tell you that gains on benching come a lot slower than deadlift gains. People who disagree are the short people.
It's the same idea that taller people look like they carry less BF than they do. B/c of the wingspan, your arms will look a lot skinnier than they are.
Im about average.. But whats crazy is my dad. At only a little over 6, hes got a wingspan of almost 6'10! He had to get his arms to about 17 inches until they even looked right on him. It took a hell of a lot of volume to get there though.
I just measured it and mine is 5'11.25", which is almost exactly my height (5'11.5"). Kinda spooky. I guess there's some other reason why I suck at bench presses. Damnit!
Long wingspan = slow size gains?
:p 
Linear Mode
