19.6 inch bideltoid at 6´5 is it over?

[bonelesskid]

how bad is it? do i need steroids?

 

[o_Owtf]

I compared you against the 1988 ANSUR data. At your height and bidelt width you're probably a bit lanky. If you check the image you're below the blue band, which means that you're probably in the bottom 10% bidelt at your height. If you give me your biacromial width that's more accurate of your potential if you start building muscle.

 

[bonelesskid]

I compared you against the 1988 ANSUR data. At your height and bidelt width you're probably a bit lanky. If you check the image you're below the blue band, which means that you're probably in the bottom 10% bidelt at your height. If you give me your biacromial width that's more accurate of your potential if you start building muscle.
View attachment 4818520

my biacromial is 46cm aprox

 

[cortisolman2]

how bad is it? do i need steroids?

"im 6'5 chad with 6 gfs and i slay foids everyday should i rope"

 

[bonelesskid]

"im 6'5 chad with 6 gfs and i slay foids everyday should i rope"

im mtn and im khhv at 19

 

[o_Owtf]

my biacromial is 46cm aprox

Wtf really? I honestly find that hard to believe. That would put you almost in the top 1% even among US army personell from 2012, which probably puts you in the top 0.5% of the general US male population or something like that. If it's really true that your biacromial is that extremely wide, then you must have incredibly small deltoids. When comparing bideltoid to biacromial width you're literally of the charts with how disproportionately small your muscles are.

I'm pretty sure you messed up somewhere. But if you check again and you really have a 46 cm biacromial width then my advice would just be to train your deltoids, steroids are absolutely not needed.

 

[cortisolman2]

im mtn and im khhv at 19
atleast im kv and not khhv

 

[AmericanMTN]

yes its so over

 

[bonelesskid]

Wtf really? I honestly find that hard to believe. That would put you almost in the top 1% even among US army personell from 2012, which probably puts you in the top 0.5% of the general US male population or something like that. If it's really true that your biacromial is that extremely wide, then you must have incredibly small deltoids. When comparing bideltoid to biacromial width you're literally of the charts with how disproportionately small your muscles are.
View attachment 4819963

I'm pretty sure you messed up somewhere. But if you check again and you really have a 46 cm biacromial width then my advice would just be to train your deltoids, steroids are absolutely not needed.

Is this the biacromial width? I re measured and its more like 44cm but still.

this is how i look like:

 

[o_Owtf]

Is this the biacromial width? I re measured and its more like 44cm but still.
View attachment 4820099
this is how i look like:
View attachment 4820109

44 cm is still great, it was just 46 that seemed very extreme. Your upper body at least looks proportionate, I wouldn't change anything honestly, good for you bhai

 

[bonelesskid]

44 cm is still great, it was just 46 that seemed very extreme. Your upper body at least looks proportionate, I wouldn't change anything honestly, good for you bhai

in that picture i had a shoulder pump but i look narrow most of the time, might just be that i have 0 muscle.

 

[o_Owtf]

in that picture i had a shoulder pump but i look narrow most of the time, might just be that i have 0 muscle.

Well maybe try getting a pump like that, and measure your bidelt. Then shoot for having that bidelt when you're resting, although it might be unrealistic.

But for what it's worth even if your bidelt isn't bad, combined with your stature you're in the bottom 10% proportionately speaking. If we're strictly going off the data that should explain why you think you're looking slightly narow. At 52-53 cm bidelt according to the prediction from the 1988 ANSUR you should look average proportion wise, so maybe try shooting for that at least and see if you look better. See if you look good with the 52-53 cm pump.