I have quite a few reasons for trying to stay fit. I’d like to stay alive long enough and be healthy long enough to see, be a good candidate for and participate in the advent of transhumanity / posthumanity. Of course, just being around is no guarantee that I’ll be able to start getting parts replace willy nilly as they wear out. This is, after all, America, so the issue of money is always there. But I digress.
So yes, since I have no idea how quickly these bio-engineering advances will become widely available and accessible, I try to keep myself what I consider reasonably fit.
Then there is the area of bodily aesthetics. Somehow, I escaped the aesthetic tyranny of Michelangelo’s “David” as the zenith of the male human form. I never wanted to look like that. Instead, somewhere along the line, I imagined that as I got older, it would be nice to strive (asymptotically) towards the Farnese Hercules as a goal. No, the beard is probably not going to happen. It is just not in my genes, for the moment I have to admit.
I was never really that organized in this pursuit, though. Probably the closest I ever got was when I was playing rugby for months straight before Bingham 2012. Performance, not aesthetics drove my exercise program.
I’ve come across a way of adding this aesthetic component in a way that appeals to my geeky little mind. I wasn’t aware that there were methods of taking your existing measurements and generating measurements for an “ideal” (yes, I know, I know) proportionality. But there are. I’ll focus on an ancient one and one much more recent. For both, I’ll fill in my current measurements over the next day or so.
Male “Grecian Ideal” Method
Through much analysis and determining of what constituted ideal physical measurements – the basis of any balanced physique – a “Grecian Ideal” calculator was formulated for self-assessment based on wrist size, to determine the individual body part circumference goals one should aspire to in order to develop the perfect physique. Eugene Sandow in his prime was close to the Grecian Ideal.
I entered an average of the circumferences of my wrists, 6.75″, and got the following:
| Measured | Suggested | Personal Variance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrist: | 6.750” | ||
| Chest: | 41.000″ | 44″ | -3.000″ |
| Waist: | 34.500″ | 31″ | +3.500″ |
| Hip: | 37.500″ | 37″ | +0.500″ |
| Bicep: | 11.875″ | 16″ | -4.125″ |
| Forearm: | 10.875″ | 13″ | -2.125″ |
| Thigh: | 22.375″ | 23″ | – 0.625″ |
| Calves: | 13.875″ | 15″ | -1.125″ |
| Neck: | 15.000″ | 16″ | -1.000″ |
Steve Reeves’ (yes, that Steve Reeves) Method
Then there’s the method invented by Steve Reeves. Why Mr. Reeves? Duh – because he’s Steve Reeves. At the time (1940s-1950s) his body represented what a bodybuilding physique should look like – flawless and beautiful. His measurements (18.5-inch arms, calves and neck) were regarded as a benchmark for symmetry and proportion, and his philosophy was to keep the body balanced through the adherence to a couple of methods: Maintaining a specified weight for your height to prevent distorting your natural body symmetry and striving for specific bone to muscle ratios.
| Steve Reeves Ultra-Symmetrical Physique Ratios |
|---|
| Arm size = 252% of Wrist size |
| Calf size = 192% of Ankle size |
| Neck Size = 79% of Head size |
| Chest Size = 148% of Pelvis size |
| Waist size = 86% of Pelvis size |
| Thigh size = 175% of Knee size |
| Measured | Suggested | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Height: | 5’8.5″ | Weight: | #177.5 | |
| Wrist: | 6.75” | Arms: | 17” | -5.125″ |
| Ankle: | 8.5” | Calves: | 16” | -2.125″ |
| Head: | 22” | Neck: | 17” | -2.000″ |
| Pelvis: | 36.5” | Chest: | 54” | -10.000″ |
| Pelvis: | 36.5” | Waist: | 31” | +3.500″ |
| Knee: | 15” | Thighs: | 26” | -3.625″ |
Over the next couple of days I’ll enter my existing measurements and compute the variances, so I have an idea of how far I have to go. OK, it seems a little excessive. Perhaps even a bit like that movie Looker.
We’ll see how this works. I’m giving it a year, perhaps 18 months.
Unconventionaut 