The pictures having rulers superimposed are an attempt to measure bicep height and flexed/unflexed ratio. This method is inaccurate and produce results that are very different from reality owing to several error factors.
Please note that the results found by the shown equations are only reliable when a measuring tape is used.
Some muscle women are claimed to have biceps of some size, say; 36cm (14"), 40cm (16"), 43cm (17") and even perhaps 46cm (18"). We do believe that such measurements are correct. But are larger sizes actually corresponding to peaked biceps? Well, this may not be so!
Biceps development depends fundamentally on genetics and to a certain extent, on workout preferences. If a woman works-out her biceps with more persistence they will certainly become more defined, harder, larger in volume and, when flexed, they may peak.
For instance, a 36cm (14") biceps woman could have them peaked while another having 43cm (17") or more, doesn't. It's a question of biceps flexing performance. This can be quantified in terms of "flexing percentage".
The following equation may help to assess that performance provided two arm measurements are made; a relaxed bicep measurement (Rm) and a flexed bicep measurement (Fm):
Flexing % = (Fm - Rm) * 100 / Rm
Applying this equation could only be regarded as a "standard method" proposal. But what would be the minimum percentage value for a bicep to be considered a peaked one? This is a different matter that FBB experts have to establish according to their experience!
Assuming that any muscle woman is always proud of her biceps, maybe they start to become keen on biceps performance competitions in future!
Previous part of this gallery
The other Art Galleries
If you don't have a Username and Password for the Galleries, get one here