Ideal Body Measurements Calculator

Ideal Body Measurements Calculator
What are your ideal body measurements? The ideal body measurements calculator works this out for you, based on the Steve "Hercules" Reeves formula.


Ideal Body Measurements Calculator

Wrist size:
Ankle size:
Head size:
Pelvis size:
Knee size:
Neck: ??
Arms: ??
Chest: ??
Waist: ??
Thighs: ??
Calves: ??

103 Comments+ Post Comment

No Profile Pic
Posted Sat, 12/09/2017 - 04:46

insane, at 5'9" 155lbs they say i should have 17in neck 18in biceps 26in thighs 19in calves 53in chest 31in waist ankles are 10 in, wrist is 7in 15knee 22in head 3in pelvis...closest thing is my waist is 30 otherwise thats nuts i have 14" bi 40ch , 21q 15c

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 09/24/2017 - 23:41

It was close not sure what to think of it
I am 5"6 185
Waist 33
Chest 50
Arms 15
Calves 15
Neck 15
Quads 23
Wrist 6
Ankle 6

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 12/06/2017 - 02:15

You are 5'6 and weight 185 with 6 inch wrist and ankle? Wtf? And manage to keep a 33 inch waist? You must have a lot of muscle. Seems like you have big quads and chest, maybe a big back too? My shoulders are 49 inches, my arms are (left) 15.5 - 16 (right), my calve are (left) 16 - 16.5 (right), IDK about my chest hard to measure it on my own. My quads are (left) 23.5 to 24 (right). My neck is 15, my wrist is 7 3/4 my ankle is like 10 inches (I have big ankles). My hand in circumference is 10 inches. My hips are 38 inches, my Forearms (left) 13.5 - 14 inches (right), my waist is 34... I underwent depression and gained lots of fat from 208 I'm down to 175 lbs in 3 months right now thanx to longboarding and working out. My stomach is my main goal at the moment considering when I was a 155 lbs my waist was 29 inches with 15.5 inch arms.

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 05/23/2017 - 02:52
David Budi Wartono

pls add in centimeters too

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 05/02/2016 - 13:20

Do you measure your chest with or without your arms? In other words would it be chest size or shoulders?

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 01/19/2017 - 11:35
abraham mata

i measured my chest under my arms and had my brother measure the tape for me so there wouldnt be any flexiing involved . so I guess under the arms bro so its more accurate.

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 09/27/2015 - 03:53

No doubt having those wonderful stats and weight would lead to an early death often. Just check the stats in the five long-living areas of the world called Blue Zones and you will learn that even our BMI tables are too high such that at 5 10 the best BMI for me is around 21, not 25.

No Profile Pic
Posted Fri, 07/22/2016 - 17:49
SM Archer

Foremost, BMI has been demonstrated to be utter tripe. Furthermore, how do you explain Jim Fixx vs Jackie Gleason. Or Charles Durning vs. Charles Bronson---died at 89 & 81 respectively. Moreover, Reeves lived well into his 1980s.
Richard, I think you, and your ilk, are pushing junk science. Yes, there are some very good habits to pick up from the Blue Zone Diet. However, it's not an absolute and the BMI of those regions is as much genetics as diet.
In closing, think before you speak.
In closing,

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 08/28/2016 - 12:40
Bob M

I believe BMI was designed by the US Army to look at trends in the population and individual soldiers. Waist to height is a much better indicator.

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 08/21/2017 - 22:54

Anecdotes are useless. I agree that the "Western" body type is large for BMI, but the people who live the longest are those who have for security (not starving) but the lowest BMI. I know there is a proven link, not sure if they've shown causation.

That said, I'm 6'4" 195 w/ 9% bf so fairly scrawny and am bordering on overweight according to BMI...

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 09/10/2015 - 11:14

what does NAN" mean?

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 09/20/2015 - 00:42

NaN = Not a Number

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 07/06/2015 - 15:21

almost correct but chest should be 53" lol mines 47" neck 17" waist 31" thighs 26" arms 18" calves 17" has anyone tried getting clothes to fit them because id like to know all my gear is strechy lol its amazing no-ones got on to this yet

No Profile Pic
Posted Sat, 06/27/2015 - 06:52

Don't get caught up in this guys and girls, this is not a blueprint of how you should/will look, you can have thin wrists it wont prevent you from gaining muscle and it doesn't matter. All this talk of ecto, meso and endomorph wont limit you to how your body can look.

No Profile Pic
Posted Sat, 06/13/2015 - 15:47

It show cheast size 53" ,and waist 31" how it is possible. Currently my cheast is 39"

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 06/12/2016 - 05:10
P.Nagy Balin

My chest is curently at 45", according to the calculator my ideal is 58" ridicuolous. My waist is 30" but it should be 34" altough i think tha lower the more aestzhatic, so i'M on ther better side :D

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 01/15/2015 - 13:05

I realize this thread goes back a ways, but to address some of the repeated questions, this calculator is based on a book a now dead guy wrote back in like the 1950's. So yeah, it doesn't cater to women, nor to overly tall or short people. Sorry. Blame it on the times.

Its not meant to be the end-all, be-all calculator for ideal physique, its meant to simply take the ideals as presented by a famous 50's body builder, and make them into an online calculator.

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 11/11/2014 - 22:24

this according to the calculator: 18"Arms: 18"Chest: 50"Waist: 29"Thighs: 25"Calves: 16"Ideal bodyweight: 175lbs
but how can this put limit of 175 lbs since muscle weight is pretty much more!
currently my measurements are
16" biceps 44" chest 33" waist 22" thighs 14.5" calves with a weight of 78kg. I am going to come to that measurements but my weight is never going to be even closer to that!

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 10/20/2014 - 11:41

where is the 6'8" option?...

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 09/07/2014 - 00:37

Nate, it means you can't spell

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 09/04/2014 - 16:49

Says I should have 23" arms - how do you lose size in your biceps?

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:11

Frank Zane!!

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 05/14/2014 - 05:40

What about those of us under 5'5"?

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/23/2014 - 21:36

It says I should have chest 61" waist 35" and thighs 29".... Rest two are exact but chest 61 seriously? it measuring around the shoulder or just the chest??

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 04/21/2014 - 18:49

Oh wow haha I did something wrong! Apparently I need to shrink my pelvic bone to 27 and somehow add it to my rib cage. I wonder how difficult that surgery would be on my body cuz lifestyle alone isn't going to do that

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 04/15/2014 - 23:47

Look up adonis index for a less of a "body builder" approach I believe this is more of an athletic/Hollywood look type goal that an average person can achieve. There's one for women too if not the shrink wrap program has a women's e book also and is almost the same ratios

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 03/18/2014 - 19:19

So anyone under 5'5'' is not ideal?
Where's the logic in that!

Not impressed Steve Reeves

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 03/03/2014 - 13:48
Ryan jackson

I think this is pretty accurate! Im a master trainer and just got through measuring my entire body and wanted to see how i stacked up! Im 6'1 55" chest (around shoulders) 44" shoulders raised all measurements came out accurate for a 6'1 guy but im only 230 8% bf it said i should be 215 :-/!!! Besides that its all a gimmic, a number of factors will come into play...for short its a kool tool to use once...maybe twice lol

No Profile Pic
Posted Fri, 02/28/2014 - 20:13
Charlie C.

Well I'm kind of surprised at the measurements. It's says I should weigh 185 at 5'10. Here's my actual on left and projected on right. I've always been thick and muscular. Seems like i was more a 34 waist in my youth. I can't fit 34s pants in the legs ever, 36s yes. Interesting stuff.
5'10 215
15 Arms 19
7.5 wrist
23 Head
24 leg 29
10.5 ankle
42 pelvis
36 waist 36
54 Chest 62
17.5 calf 20
16.75 knee
16.5 neck 18

I am about 15 percent body fat right now at 215. Seems like the projected waste size for me is to big at 36 inches. I have huge legs, knees, calfs and ankles without lifting at all. I only do upper body right now. I do 300 minutes a week of moderate cardio on the elyptical. I do absolutely nothing all day at work except sit behind a computer. I lift 3days a week for a half hour. I was 245 September 1st 2013 , at 30% body fat. I'm 54. At 17 I was 5'10 200 at 10% body fat rolling out bed without lifting just twice a week. Trying to get back down to 200.

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 02/04/2014 - 22:01

Thank you for this man.

What about *hips* size, it's the most important measure for health purposes!

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 02/04/2014 - 15:42
john cotter

7how would these change for age of 77. have a loooong way to go

No Profile Pic
Posted Sat, 08/20/2016 - 22:55

i am 6 ft. i weigh 190 lbs what should my measurments be

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 01/12/2014 - 18:43

Steve Reves was a bodybuilder back in the 50's, I don't think a lot of women participated at that time.

More reasonable waist sizes are found by measuring your pelvis as a circumference and I believe chest measurements are taken around the arms as well

No Profile Pic
Posted Sat, 01/11/2014 - 21:42

This is great! I think Steve Reeves is the best muscle man I have ever seen. And I am trying to achieve his classic shape as per his book Building the Classic Physique. I had to change it to suit my age and genetics, but the ideals, philosophies exercises and shape is definitely achieveable and puts u into being attractive- as well as big and strong. This calculator I think works. I am a long from my ideal but its achievable. But MEASURE THE CHEST AROUND THE SHOULDERS and measure the waist around the smallest part of the torso, which is actually between the chest and the pelvis and not the part that carries the most fat (ie bellybutton). Further, I don't like big abs or obsession with low bodyfat. I like Steve's era or thinking of a small waist and trying to get it. If that means practising Vacuums so be it. It still steers the mind in the right direction. And if you look at any Handsome Princes, in any fairytale - they have Steve's body! Not Brad Pitt's, not Arnolds, not Vin Diesel and not Phil Heath. This is the dream body for men for the rest of time. Peace & go buy his book.

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 12/19/2013 - 22:22

Hi guys
i am 5' 9 tall n 69kgs , my waist size s 31inch
please tell me my ideal
a) weight
b) waist size
c) shoulder size
d) bi ceps size
e) chest size

No Profile Pic
Posted Fri, 11/22/2013 - 18:18

i couldn't even do the thing! imma college ball player and im 6'8" it doesnt even give me that height option? athletes come in all shapes and sizes...

No Profile Pic
Posted Sat, 11/09/2013 - 09:00

What does NaN mean in his ideal calculation? Says my ideal weight is 190.... Anytime Im under 200 I feel uncomfortable and think I look too skinny.

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 10/20/2013 - 02:02

first of all thank God there are people shorter than me...I thought I was short with 5'6"...anyway I am nowhere near accepting my results as an ideal measurement. I'd rather be an Ashton Kutcher than an Arnold. I don't think having a chest almost twice as big as your waist is ideal. Just saying.

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 09/15/2013 - 10:22

Great site...what about female competitors we need to be able to log in heights shorter then 5.5 please!

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 07/29/2013 - 08:09
Reeves 59

The chest measurement is flawed, virtually impossible to achieve. It appears to be
"closely" following the Golden ratio of 1.618, but that would apply to shoulder circumference.

No Profile Pic
Posted Fri, 07/12/2013 - 12:39

I believe the calculations are pretty good, but each person has their own ideal form and this is just 1 of many measurement guild lines out there. I would like to clarify a few of the measurement concepts here that everyone is having issues on.

1) This is the ideal form for a male based on Steve Reeve's own ratio measurements. Since Steve is a male it is a calculator for males only.
2) All measurements are based on lean muscle RATIOS to your own bone structures. Which means that if you are measuring these things around your fat it is invalid.
3) The height is only meant for you to gauge your ideal weight only, does not affect any other measurements. If you want to know any height under 5'5", use 160 lbs as base and deduct 5 lbs for every inch under 5'5".
4) Pelvic measurements are measured at the WIDEST part, which is where your upper leg meets your pelvis. Most people are measuring around the top part of the pelvis which is about 1-2" below the belly button and that is incorrect, you will be 3-4" off.
5) When they discuss chest size here, it is the length around your upper body at chest level. So the chest measurements also includes a large muscular back also. If all you focus on is a large chest muscle and neglect your upper back muscles then these chest sizes will seem impossible. You may look good in the front but pretty weak from the back.

I hope this helps...

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 07/10/2013 - 09:33

According to this model, a man's ideal body weight is only a function of his height? Uh, no. That makes no sense whatsoever. A person's ideal body weight should consider all of the input factors including height as well as bone circumference measurements.

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 07/09/2013 - 13:47

Height seems to have no effect on size.

Given mass density is same among men, one with 18" biceps but long arms due to tall height will look small compared to 18" biceps on a smaller man.

Does these measurements work for Men above 6 feet 4 inches

No Profile Pic
Posted Tue, 07/02/2013 - 02:13

Wow — it says my ideal measurements are thigh – 30" and calf – 17", and these are my exact thigh and calf measurements. However, it says my neck should be 18" (actual = 16"), my arms should be 18" (actual =13½"), chest should be 55" (actual = 44"), and waist should be 32" (actual = 38"). However, as with all "ideal measurement" calculators, the calculated waist to chest ratio is ridiculously low. As it is, my body fat percentage is 6% (based on skinfolds), so if I go any lower, I would be underweight. Also, even in the case of critical starvation, it would be physically impossible to have those waist and chest measurements without metabolizing bone. If the chest circumference was 55", the abdominal bone would be 33 inches. I know this because that would be a 60% waist to chest ratio, and I have had a ratio that low before and my waist was down to the bone (I have since recovered the muscle that was lost).

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 07/10/2013 - 09:44

Not trying to be rude or anything, I just wish to try to help you (and other readers) understand their body measurements and how to interpret this calculator. You appear to be overweight based on the measurements you listed. 13.5" arms are small for a man, I only weigh 160 pounds and have 16" arms. Perhaps you do not do weightlifting. Similarly, the ideal ratio of chest to waist for a man forms a triangular shape, not a tubular shape. For an overweight person, thigh and calf are most likely at the ideal measurements due to the inclusion of fat (rather than strictly muscle). This calculator shows the user their approximate ideal body shape for a bodybuilder who has well below 10% body fat. Rather than relying on skin fold measurements which are incredibly inaccurate, I suggest people should just look at comparative pictures on the internet to see what it really means to be under 10% body fat. Under 10% body fat, you should be able to clearly see your six pack.

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 06/27/2013 - 22:28

It was all within an inch or two for me except the chest. That was pretty far off unless I'm measuring my chest wrong. Kinda hard to do on my own though!!

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 05/12/2013 - 09:32

There is no way I will ever get to 190 lbs/ 86 kgs without the use of steroids. I've been lifting for about 3 years and the gains are already coming to a crawl at 165 lbs/ 75 kgs. Of course I started out at 129 lbs/ 58.5 kgs, so a 35 lb/ 15.9 kg gain is already quite impressive for my frame. I'll be lucky to put on another 11 lbs/ 5 kgs in my lifetime.

No Profile Pic
Posted Fri, 04/26/2013 - 04:45

This is all well and good but ideal for who? I am an african American and i am very curvy my ankles are small and I have an outrageous shape. Small waist big bottom and matching bust. When I was larger it was a problem but now I'm in shape and by some standards I should be smaller but my waist is 22.5 inches and I have flat abs with a 34c bust and 37in derrière. In other words ideal is objective. If you are in shape then stop striving for someone else's perfection.

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 04/21/2013 - 13:53
Cody C

I believe what this site is calling a chest measurement most of you will refer to as a shoulder measurement, just measure with your arms to your side and you should come a lot closer to the Steve's reeves number

No Profile Pic
Posted Sun, 09/01/2013 - 13:06

Very smart! I did not think of that. Suddenly all the measurements are much closer for me. Due to my 8.5 inch wrist and 11" ankle, my ideal measurements are very high. I need to reduce my waist from 46 to 41, but everything else except chest is within one inch of the calculator. Even using the suggested shoulder measurement (70 inches!), I need 5" more on the chest/shoulders. There is no way I could weigh 200lb at 6'0" and have these measurements. I'm 325 and need to gain 5" on my chest and lose 5" from my waist, so if I could actually do this I would expect to weigh the same or more than I do now.