Handgelenkumfang = Veranlagung

[rantanplan]

Wie Homer schon sagte: Schmale Handgelenke finden sich m.E. eher bei Typen die von Natur aus insgesamt eher mager und schlank gebaut sind - daher gibt es da sicherlich Zusammenhänge zwischen solchen Merkmalen und dem Wachstumspotenzial.

@chnolch: Du musst den Umfang natürlich im Verhältnis zum Rest sehen. Bei 1,66 Körperhöhe sind 17cm wahrscheinlich Durchschnitt.

[redfox]

noch was zum Thema:

Der Handgelenksumfang hat keine Aussagekraft bez. Veranlagung..

Poliquin zu diesem Thema... (nebenbei,i hab zwar keinen Bizeps wie P. aber bei mir würden diese Milchmädchenrechnungen auch nicht mehr stimmen)
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459760

Zitat:
1) Your arm should be a certain multiple of your wrist measurement (I can't remember what the exact multiple or factor is anymore, but trust me, it doesn't matter). This is what antiquated authors like Stuart McRobert recommend. In practice, it just doesn't work.

For example, if I applied this theory to my own arm development, my arms should never have grown to their present size. Obviously, they did. But it shouldn't have been possible, given my wrist measurement. If I'd taken this advice seriously, I would've psychologically sabotaged my arm development. If I believed that it was limited to a certain amount, based on this silly equation, my arms probably would've stopped growing long ago.

2) Your arms should be a certain number of inches above and beyond your wrist measurement. This advice has long been propagated by bodybuilding authors like Bradley J. Steiner who, with the exception of "my house is on fire," really hasn't said anything new since 1968.

Some authors would say that a realistic goal of arm development is ten inches over your wrist measurement. Again, had I taken this advice to heart, it would've given me an arm measurement of 17 inches, again shortchanging my potential.