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.

Instructions

Ideal Body Measurements Calculator

Height:
Wrist size:
Ankle size:
Head size:
Pelvis size:
Knee size:
 
 
Neck
Neck: ??
Arm
Arms: ??
Chest
Chest: ??
Waist
Waist: ??
Thigh
Thighs: ??
Calf
Calves: ??
3.4 STARS
35 VOTES
RATE THIS

86 Comments+ Post Comment

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

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
deepanshu

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
alexander

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

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

Nate, it means you can't spell

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

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

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

Frank Zane!!

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

What about those of us under 5'5"?

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

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

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

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
allen

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
Alana

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
Sqandr

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 Sun, 01/12/2014 - 18:43
Russell

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
Gilbert

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
ganesh

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
Dave

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
IForge

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
Neutron

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
Sandra

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
JonEQ

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
Brian

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
fearless

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
John

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
Brian

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
Jshoe

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
jojath1983

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
Feerze

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
James

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.

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/10/2013 - 23:54
Rick

This calculator is not exactly his ideal. First of all one of his stated ideals is that the neck, bicep, and calve size should be the same. Also the waist measurement he is giving is based on sucking your stomach in as far as you can. If you look at any of his pictures you can see it is quit obvious that is what he is doing. No ones stomach naturally caves in that far, especially when there is muscular development of the stomach muscles. I'm only 5'6" with 8 pack abs with a clear separation from the right and left all the way down to the pubic area and I have a 30 inch waist. This calculator says it should be 26 inches. The only way I could have a 26 inch waist would be to have virtually no stomach, oblique or lower back development and be at 3% body fat. If you look at those Greek statues they don't match the supposed Greek ideal for the waist either. There is a lot of B.S. information and ideas in bodybuilding. Also who thinks that his waist size is ideal? He looks like if some on pats him on the back he will break in half. What a joke.

No Profile Pic
Posted Fri, 12/27/2013 - 07:53
Don

I second that.. The suggested waist measurement is a joke. You can't achieve that number without sucking your stomach and measuring at the "most concave" part. Additionally you have to be less than 5% BF and devoid of any Abs, since Abs will increase the measurement. Although this is an "ideal" to look forward to, by no means its achievable by an ordinary human being, working his @ss off 6 days a week. You will need superior genetics too..

No Profile Pic
Posted Fri, 04/05/2013 - 22:56
DCO

I wish I could have done this, but the shortest hieght is taller than I am. As far as I'm concered this is useless for anyone under 5'5"

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 04/04/2013 - 12:49
Ol'd Guy

What is the "healthy" body fat calculation for the calculated weight? And since healthy body fat levels are different for different age groups, what should be a reasonable level for each male age group?

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 04/04/2013 - 11:00
nigel

funny just did some rough measurements and got almost the exact measurement i should be in give or take a few inches

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 21:02
April

Is there an equivalent calculation for women?

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 21:02
April

Is there an equivalent calculation for women?

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 21:02
April

Is there an equivalent calculation for women?

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 20:26
Alexandra

This is for a guy only... what about girls?

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 19:52
Nate

what happens if your to tall

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 18:14
SMH

For those who clearly don't know how to measure.

1.Use your right hand for wrist and right knee for knee.
2. Don't measure the circumference of your waist but the pelvic bones from one end to another. (from the front)
3. It's OBVIOUSLY for guys and i have no idea why some girls would be so dumb to even ask the silly question of "is it for guys only?" seriously?

No Profile Pic
Posted Thu, 04/04/2013 - 17:52
Mike W.-

When you say Pelvic "measured across" are you saying NOT to measure the pelvic itself in a circumerence? Also are you measuring the pelvic at the Iliac crest or... ??

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 18:10
MojoMo

My arms are perfect but everything else is scrawny, apparently. I'll just wear sleeveless jackets and baggy pants.from now on

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 17:30
Brandon

This seems pretty accurate for me except chest!
Neck: 18"/18"
Arms: 17.5"/19"
Chest: 46"/55"
Waist: 32"/32"
Thighs: 25"/29"
Calves: 17.5"/19"

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 17:25
George

It's difficult in the imperial system...
How about an option in Metric System!

No Profile Pic
Posted Wed, 04/03/2013 - 17:06
Patti

I'm 5 feet 2 inches tall. The height starts at 5'5"... What about short people????

No Profile Pic
Posted Mon, 04/01/2013 - 23:54
Leah

Is there a women's one?